On 10/16/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Sayre wrote: > > >>I see no reason to nest the categories, pics and foo collections under > >>the entries collection. > >> > >> > > > >I am describing deployed software to you, not advocating a position. > >Describe some deployed software that has trouble with the XOXO > >outlines in my draft. I'll note that the design you suggested is also > >possible to express in XOXO. > > > > > > > Hmm, not advocating a position? You did say "This is what is needed"... > that sure does sound like advocating a position to me. Regardless, our > design choices should not be limited by what is currently deployed; nor > does it matter if deployed software will have trouble with your > suggested XOXO outlines. > > You still haven't answered the question about why nesting is *required* > when I've already demonstrated an approach that will also work, is less > complicated, and is also supported by existing deployed software. > > GET /2nd_weblog HTTP/1.1 > Host: example.com > > ...returns > > <html> > <head> > <link rel="collection" href="/entries" /> > <link rel="collection" href="/pics" /> > <link rel="collection" href="/categories" /> > <link rel="collection" href="/foo" /> > ... > > Note that this approach would allow nested collections if an > implementation needed it; but it does not *require* them. >
... and we have devolved again from what to how. - Luke
