On 10/16/05, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ah; my original post turned up, sorry for the double posting]
>
>
> Luke Arno wrote:
> > Ok, I am throwing this out there for the sake of argument...
> >
> > Could a server not issue a unique "stub" id with introspection? Then
> > a client could just increment on the end of that. Ids could be globally
> > unique and a server could change it or not when receiving a POST.
>
>
> Luke,
>
> probably because that's operationally the same as changing a real id*.
> If people feel we need to go with invalid Atom, I would be +1 to
> something like an empty tag or a marker URI.
>
Yeah, that 100% straw :)
> Maybe we need a new template pace:
>
> <atom:id>{id}</atom:id>
>
> That has one advantage - if you get one of those downstream you'll know
> what, and roughly where, something went wrong (anyone who's ever used
> Ant or certain web templating libraries will know what I'm talking about).
>
> The downside is by the time we're done working around invalidity, we
> might have well specced a templating langauge.
>
The idea to entry templates (available in or more likely via introspection)
has been itching at the back of my mind for a bit. It seems like that
could be a simple way to communicate defaults and some feature
support. Would we need magic-brackets or could we get by with just a
"fill in the blanks" type of thing."
Again, I am not advocating any of this. It's just a thought experiment.
> cheers
> Bill
>
> * the whole notion of real and unreal ids makes me think we're well off
> the happy path.
>
Agreed! I feel this way about invalid entries as well.
- Luke
