On 11/5/05, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > James M Snell wrote:
[ snip ] > > 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). > It is not that a collection is a feed. Collections do not exist. The metaphor conflates two distinct aspects of the protocol and creates a layer of indirection in specification text. POSTing entries is one issue; listing entries is another. Spec text can simply say "feed" rather then "a feed document that is a representation of a collection" or whatever. (not actually quoting the draft here) Entry POST and entry listing can be decoupled without a loss of functionality. Separation of Concerns > > > 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? > Since a feed is a feed as described above, subscription is the same as it ever was. The line between blogging client and news reader will likely blur. It can and should. I think the idea is just to use the next/prev/etc. stuff that is being worked on. It is not an overlap. It is the same thing. Principle of Least Invention - Luke
