VOEvent PR RFC: Description content

[Rob Seaman]

On Jul 12, 2006, at 2:55 AM, Mark Taylor wrote:

> Can I suggest an additional attribute format
> on Description which may take (at least) the values plain (the  
> default)
> and html. I'd suggest that it is not limited to these values so that
> specialised applications can use other formatting methods if they wish
> to in the future (on the understanding that not all software may know
> what to do with exotic formatting methods).

My initial reaction to this suggestion is supportive.  Folks should  
speak up, especially if you don't like it.  Would we call it "type"  
as with a Reference, or do we explicitly want to avoid overloading  
the attribute?  Also, is there any reason ever to attach a name to a  
Description?  On the other hand, it seems to me that we may have  
discussed this issue in passing at some point.  If so we likely  
decided that it was up to the subscriber to interpret the contents.   
I don't think a hint would hurt, however.  The attribute would be  
optional, of course.  In its absence, responsibility reverts to the  
subscriber (phrasing something like "the publisher asserts no  
knowledge...")

A little rummaging in my mailbox has failed to reveal any discussion  
of prior art related to Description.  We borrowed so much else - does  
anybody remember if Description was taken by analogy?  Which is to  
say that Mark's comment may have broader applicability in other IVOA  
specifications/schemata.

Thanks, Mark, for playing the VOEvent home game!

Rob