Luke Arno wrote:
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.
To be absolutely clear, this is NOT what my proposal is saying
What I'm suggesting is that there is a resource responsible for creating
new member resources (in response to a POST) and for serving up a list
of member resources. I'm calling that resource a "Collection". What
I'm suggesting is that the representation of that resource (what is
returned by HTTP GET on it's URI) be an Atom feed.
Collections most certainly do exist.
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.
Disagree. a collection feed serves a completely different purpose than a
subscription feed just as list listing of entries on my weblogs home
page serves a different purpose than the listing of entries in my
weblogs administrative interface. Sure, they're represented using the
same format (XHTML in this case), but that doesn't erase the fact that
they're used for two different things.
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.
next/prev/etc is not a part of the PaceReworkCollectionListing proposal.
It may be used in conjunction with it, but that's not what I am
suggesting in this pace.
- James
