* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-02 19:45]:
> A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > Such as?
>
> Aristotle, I appreciate the intention, but please don't bother.
> It is painfully clear that Robert has no intention of adding
> anything of any real value to the discussion.
I know. However, I despise politics and old boys clubs and prefer
the merit of my decisions to be self-evident, so I’m avoiding any
assumption of any axe to grind behind his behaviour, to see what
should be addressed and how. If there is any meritorious concern
in his objections, I’d like it addressed, regardless (despite?)
of who brought them up and how.
> As far as FTE is concerned, please understand that I am trying
> to find the best way of accommodating a mix between "The
> simplest thing that could possibly work" with "The way things
> likely ought to work".
Absolutely; I pushed for some of the compromises in the current
design myself.
> With the thr:replies element, to do it properly, I have to
> create a new extension element, create a factory, register the
> extension with the parser, etc. Adding in the difficulties
> inherent in matching equivalent href values between the
> atom:link and thr:replies element means that I'm having to do a
> whole lot more work than what is required with the attribute
> approach.
I have to say that your architecture sounds rather heavyweight,
though it could be close to the norm for people who don’t work at
the DOM level. I don’t have experience with that.
To give my experience from the other end, all my work has been at
the DOM level, where the approaches differ only minimally.
libxml2 provides a `getBase` method which makes xml:base support
effortless; when I use XSLT to transform Atom feed documents, I
wrap it and register it as an extension function, so matching
`href`s is trivial:
<xsl:key
name="link-to-uri"
match="atom:link"
use="uri:resolve( uri:base( . ), @href )"
/>
> So much, in fact, that I'm fairly certain that folks will be
> less likely to implement a FTE that incorporates the
> thr:replies element.
I can see that. Hrmf. There’s gotta be a better way…
I hope though that this also gives you an appreciation for
Robert’s complaint about the lack of a global reply count
provision. He’s right: for simple use cases that sidesteps a lot
of headaches on the consumer’s end.
> So if I seem grumpy and reluctant to change, please try to be
> patient and understand.
Yes, I see now how it comes about.
However, referring to above, plus what we know about the Windows
RSS Platform, please don’t forget the cases other than your own.
Let’s see if we can come up with something that is as simple to
implement as possible for everyone…
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
