--Jim Lyon <jimlyon(_at_)exchange(_dot_)microsoft(_dot_)com> wrote:
I've been asked to defend the proposition that MARID records need more
extensibility than can be easily afforded by SPF syntax. This thread is
an attempt to do so, using two possible extensions.
[example of wanting extra data to be attached to a mechanism]
XML is rich enough to handle all of the above. The spec is well
debugged.
OK, for expedience I will concede that XML is better suited to extending
the data in various directions, like a tree.
I guess I would like feedback from the group as to whether we see this
particular type of extensibility as a "requirement", or whether there is
feeling that name=value pairs placed inline is enough.
Also, did you want to say a few words about other things that might go in
_ep besides out nodes? Now would be a good time to bring that up too if so.
I will leave it to the group at large to chime in as to whether the
"multi-dimensional extensibility" requirement Jim stated is more important
than size, overall simplicity, etc.
--
Greg Connor <gconnor(_at_)nekodojo(_dot_)org>