On Feb 3, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Graham wrote:
On the other hand, the notion that sometimes you have collections of feeds is easy to understand, easy to verbalize, and widely evidenced in practice (cf PubSub & friends), if not perhaps widely seen outside of geekland. So I think I'm +1 on PaceAggregationDocument. (And I think if we adopted that we could certainly lose PaceHeadInEntry, right Bob?)
If you removed the ability to have entries within the feeds in aggregation documents, I'm in. PaceHeadInEntry covers a fundamentally different task.
I'm claiming they do the same thing. Instead of
<feed> <head><id>f1</id></head> <entry> <head><id>f1</id></head> <id>e1</id> </entry> <entry> <head><id>f1</id></head> <id>e2</id> </entry> <entry> <head><id>f2</id></head> <id>e3</id> </entry> </feed>
you'd have
<aggregation> <head><id>f1</id></head> <feed><id>f1</id> <entry><id>e1</id></entry> <entry><id>e2</id></entry> </feed> <feed><id>f2></id> <entry><id>e3</id></entry> </feed> </aggregation>
Which on the face of it seems like an improvement. -Tim
