VOEvent PR RFC: Description content

[Alasdair Allan]

Rob Seaman wrote:
> 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.

No, it seems like a reasonable suggestion.

> Would we call it "type" as with a Reference, or do we explicitly  
> want to avoid overloading the attribute?

I'd be happy with <Description type="html">, but perhaps <Description  
format="html"> would be better. In fact, perhaps the format-"" should  
be a proper mime-type, so

   <Description format="text/html">

or

   <Description format="text/plain">

which would allow room for future expansion.

>  Also, is there any reason ever to attach a name to a Description?

Surely that;s implicit from the external tag the Description is in?  
For instance a top level description is a top level overview, which a  
<Why> Description tag is talking about the concepts behind the event.  
Do we really need a name?

> 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.

Of course! Must, must, must, be optional.

> In its absence, responsibility reverts to the subscriber (phrasing  
> something like "the publisher asserts no knowledge...")

I'd probably assume plain text, but would support "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.

No, I think we just assumed we'd need one. I don't think we stole it  
from anyone else.

Al.