On 12/15/06, Hugh Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's telling that James felt it natural to choose the name "type" for the parameter. Because it really is naming a new type of document.
What would be better than "type?" Might "root" work better? It seems to me that "application/atom+xm;type=entry" describes "an Atom document whose root element is `<entry/>'." The type of the document is "atom" but it is a "kind" or "type" of atom document that has an <entry/> element as it's root. Unfortunately, "type" is being used to mean two completely different things in this context. Would you be happier if the proposal was for the following? application/atom+xml;root=entry application/atom+xml;root=feed One argument for using "root" is that it might be a usage that would be useful with other mediatypes which have more than one possible root element. Also, using "root" as the parameter name would ensure that folk don't get confused into thinking that there is any kind of subtyping going on here -- specifying ";type=root" is simply providing meta-data which describes a constrained use of the general atom type -- it is no different from doing something like saying: "I won't except any feeds that don't have <icon/> elements." or, "This feed contains no more than 256 entry elements." If one is being exceptionally formal or overly pedantic, I can see how you might argue that a feed constrained to fewer than 257 entries is somehow a sub-type of sub-class of the more general atom type. But, since every distinct instance of the atom type can be described in similar manners, it would mean that every atom instance is a "subtype." In some contexts, this observation might be useful. I don't think, however, that such precision is useful in the realm for which we normally are designing Atom... bob wyman
