James M Snell wrote: > These will be the last Pace's I post until after the next draft edit cycle. > > - James > > New > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceReworkProtocolModel
-1. Section 5 could do with some qualifying text, but not all this. I understand the current model well enough from pretty graphics btw, and nothing lept out at me from this text other than it appears to be a different model. Fyi, I have been advised to cut text considered informal; otherwise such qualifying text would already exist as I think it's in the spirit of rfc4101. So, if you want a better/richer description of what we have, then big +1, but a new model is something different and I need to evaluate both (and wonder where the technical criticism of the current model is) before buying into such a thing. Specification text does not belong in a model section (imo). > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceReworkPostOnMemberResource +1. Seems useful. I think this depends on us sorting out what Atom we'll be sending about (valid/invalid) and would mention that in the pace notes/impact. If we have this it would inelegant not to have a complete set of operations on collections :) > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceReworkCollectionMembership -1. There's a claim that it "significantly simplifies the collection model in the core protocol" but I don't see it myself. I do see an assumption that a collection is a feed, which we need to discuss (and is the main reason for -1). > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceReworkCollectionListing 0. Possibly tag abuse tho'. I don't know what it means to subscribe to a collection document and it isn't explained. Almost certainly overlaps with next/prev stuff that has been going on over in atom syntax. Do you really think a collection is a feed? cheers Bill
