[Playlist] last call for comments, motion to refreeze

[Sebastian Pipping]

Lucas Gonze wrote:
> Sebastian Pipping wrote:
>> In my eyes the application section could also use subsections:
>> right now I think we need "Websites", "Programs" and "Libraries".
>> By the way BMPx is listed twice with different URLs. Also I would like
>> the list order to change from chronological to alphabetical.
>> I cannot exactly tell why but my mind would like it better this way.
> 
> That page needs some maintenance, no doubt.  I'm not sure I agree with 
> this exact breakout of changes, but I guess I'd have to see them to know.
> 
> The question is what are people looking for when they visit it?  A 
> player or library for their platform?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I expected programs because I translated "applications" to "programs"
instead of "example implementations". But I am not a native so maybe
other visitors understand it the other way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



>> On the v1 draft: I think there are two invalid playlist tags in the
>> document that were forgotten to fix. It can be found at
>> "4.1.1.2.13 extension" and "4.1.1.2.14.1.1.1.13 extension":
>>
>>    <playlist xmlns:cl="http://example.com">
> 
> Sharp eye!
> 
> Fixed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I looked it up and was surprised to find this:

    <playlist version="1" xmlns="http://xspf.org/ns/0/" 
xmlns:cl="http://example.com">

Is this a mistake or done on purpose? I thought
the only attributes allowed for playlist are version
and xmlns. Does the spec explicitly say whether additional
attributes (in general) are allowed or not?
I assumed it is not allowed to add new attributes.
Is it said in the spec somewhere?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



>> There is still no "elements" entry for playlist.attribution:
>>
>>    4.1.1.2.10 attribution
>>    4.1.1.2.10.1 elements
>>
>> I think the document is not consistent without it.
>> I said this before - just in case you forgot about it.
> 
> thank you for the reminder.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I looked it up and it seems you forgot to append ".1" and ".2"
to the node names (the links seem correct):

4.1.1.2.10 attribution
4.1.1.2.10.1 elements
4.1.1.2.10.1 link
4.1.1.2.10.1 identifier


Regards, Sebastian