On 10/23/05, Luke Arno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What do you think of something like this: > > Is that too much indirection? Would it be better just to > use the term "edit link"? It *would* require less change > in language.
I think your effort is fastidious and worth considering. I'm not sure what I think about it yet. I hate the term "Edit URI", because URIs are not objects. They are object references, and I prefer to talk about the objects they reference. Section 4.3.1 in your version is not up to snuff (uses 'representation' 4 times in one sentence). OTOH, your version is generally sane, a smallish change, and you might be right about the format invention stuff. >From other feedback, I've got a few other changes I want to push through for -05 next week, and I am concerned that any change to this stuff will make the transition a little too traumatic for implementors. So, let's revisit this in 1 or 2 weeks. I agree that it is very much on the table, but it's a small issue in the scheme of things. > PS: Is sending a diff a good way to do this? Thanks. I can't actually use the diff, because the source is XML, but it is certainly clear and I appreciate it. Robert Sayre
