> Not that we need *more* options, but when we do introspection > (whether in core or elsewhere), I'm wondering why we need to > invent any new XML > format. Why can't the introspection document just (itself) be an > Atom feed, where entries describe collections and categories > are used to link related collections?
I think the model presented is workable. However, I must admit, that having a separate introspection format provides a model reinforced not just in structure, but in namenclature as well. I really like putting a "feed" in the context of a "service," "workspace" and "collection." Those terms are very resonant for me and for Six Apart, and are terms that our own engineers have gravitated towards on their own for describing backend data objects and structures. Which for me, is simply illustrative of the meaningfullness of that terminology for describing a model of resources, containers for resources, etc. All that being said, I think the proposal is workable, and I don't think my namenclature preferences should ever stand in the way of progress, but I thought I would share why I think a separate model is helpful. Byrne
