On 10/16/05, Luke Arno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >
I have a weird and dry sense of humor that does not always come through in email. I didn't mean for this to come across with any acid. I hope it didn't. I am often playing referee between functional and non-functional requirements, but I realize that it is a blurry line. Please ignore me and carry on with hearty debate. :) - Luke
