On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:20:56 -0800, Roy T. Fielding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > For example:
> >
> >
> >
> >http://example.org/feed"/>
> > ...
> >
> >
> > http://example.org/entry
> > http://example.org/feed"; />
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > If resources are vie
Well on this one at least we have some agreement. I have been arguing
that for reasons of elegance for some time now that feed should be a
subclass of Entry [1], and recently that the head is really hardly any
different from an Entry [2].
But my Pace never seems to have got picked up in the edit
On Jan 9, 2005, at 4:23 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
There were a couple of points made in recent discussions that might
have been misleading. One was that Atom is a tree. The XML may use
that structure, and in it's simplest form the information being
represented may be tree-shaped, but that isn't necess
>
> How about something like:
>
>
> ...
>
> http://example.org/entryA
> http://example.org/entryB"; />
> ...
>
>
> http://example.org/entryB
> http://example.org/entryA"; />
> ...
>
>
Maybe if you had the following instance you might be able to say one
do
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 10:59:01 -0800, S. Mike Dierken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >http://example.org/feed"/>
> > ...
> >
> >
> > http://example.org/entry
> > http://example.org/feed"; />
> > ...
> >
> >
> >
> > If resources are view as nodes, then h
>
>
>
>http://example.org/feed"/>
> ...
>
>
> http://example.org/entry
> http://example.org/feed"; />
> ...
>
>
>
> If resources are view as nodes, then http://example.org/feed has two
> parents. The containment tree is violated.
I'm pretty sure the discussio
There were a couple of points made in recent discussions that might
have been misleading. One was that Atom is a tree. The XML may use
that structure, and in it's simplest form the information being
represented may be tree-shaped, but that isn't necessary the case.
For example:
http:
