On 10/22/05, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/22/05, Luke Arno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I still think control should be an extension. > > > > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceDropControl > > > > These are the two proposals I will make regarding > > basic-04: > > > > 1. Use rel edit rather then an edit element. > > Ok, but let me try to sell you. Below, there's a simple diagram. Think > of the source element as whatever you would send PUT and DELETE to. > When I see an entry in an APP feed, I like to think that it's telling > me there's a source resource that's probably turned into at least one > or two public/derived resources by some Turing-complete process that > the diagram calls the transform. > > -> derived > / > / > source --> transform ---> derived > \ > \ > -> derived > > The entry in that APP feed is telling you that there's a source.
Sure. Of course. > I think atom:link > is good for pointing downstream or sideways (from derived to derived), > but not so much for pointing upstream. Why? <scratches head/> > In a Movable Type installation, > the source resources live behind a CGI, the transform is the > template+perl, and the derived resources are the static things that > get spit out by the build process. So, you get something like this > (looks better in monospace): > > APP feed > | > | -> derived > V / > | / > source --> transform ---> derived > | \ > | \ > V -> derived > | > | -> derived > V / > | / > source --> transform ---> derived > | \ > | \ > V -> derived > | > | -> derived > V / > | / > source --> transform ---> derived > | \ > | \ > V -> derived > ... > I know all this. I don't see what that tells me about link vs. edit. What am I missing? > > 2. Get rid of control. > > Well, if you give people a specific place to put their extension, they > can say they are using the standard exactly as designed. It seems like > kind of a lame security blanket to me, but maybe it will be really > important. If it turns out to be a bad idea, we can drop it from the > protocol (the IETF process is designed to handle this). > I still think it should be an extension. > > If we can get away with not adding anything to > > atom documents to make the protocol work, that > > would be beautiful. > > I see that as a non-goal. > It is not a goal but it smells nice. I trust my nose. Your aesthetic may vary. > > That said, I prefer basic by far. > > Most people do. > Good. - Luke
