On 11/5/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 >
These are my opinions and mine alone. I apologize if that was not clear. > 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. > Right. I am suggesting that these operations be decoupled. > 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. > But you use both in you web browser. One version has edit button (and whatever else). The other has no edit button. You can call one a web page and one an administrative interface but functionality is mixed into web pages to varying degrees. The line is blurry. Blog software could show you edit buttons when you are logged in using the otherwise "public" interface. What I was getting at is that an aggregator can allow you to POST comments as an APP client. You could be editing your blog from the same program. A blogging client could be seen as an enhanced aggregator. I am not saying that we have to look at it that way. I am saying that feeds are feeds even if you call then "collection listings". - Luke
