Bill de hÓra wrote:
>
> Henry Story wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6 Jul 2006, at 06:32, James M Snell wrote:
>>> Joe Gregorio wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> 7.1 Should we have language-aware titles in app:collection? 7.2.2.1
>>>>> says that @title is language sensitive. I guess you may use xml:lang,
>>>>> but what about multiple language versions of the title.
>>>>
>>>> Bah, you're right, @title should be an element not an attribute
>>>> and we should allow mulitple child elements as long as none
>>>> of them have the same xml:lang value. Good catch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> +1. However, IMHO, making this kind of change would make obvious the
>>> need to have some means of uniquely identifying a collection within the
>>> introspection document. I'm not convinced that the href is good enough.
>>> (yes, I know this has been discussed before, but I don't believe we ever
>>> adequately resolved it).
>>
>> As mentioned in a different thread here recently (sorry for being a
>> little indelicate there - it was very hot and moist here yesterday), I
>> think the spec would get out of the door fastest if the <service>
>> document is removed from the spec completely. If something like this
>> is really needed it can always be defined in a different spec. The
>> protocol spec should narrow its focus on protocol issues as much as
>> possible. A new document is not needed to get the work done.
>
> I filed a pace for titles. If that gets accepted, I'd like to look at
> edit distance between gdata, introspections and feeds, and think this
> "use a feed idea" over.
>
> cheers
> Bill
>
>
Thanks Bill for both the pace and thinking over about instrospections
and feeds. I believe turning introspection documents into feeds besides
the suggested advantages, it will also solve the collection management
(well mostly) problem. If collections are represented as entries, then
we can re-use APP to manage collections. That would be a beautiful
thing. All we really need is app:accept in collection entries and maybe,
I say maybe, app:workspace.
-Elias
