On 10/23/05, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >
You are being kind. It is crap, as my first tries usually are. > 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. I was concerned that it was too much indirection. I will try again with "edit link". > 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. > It is 4 times. <grin/> I struggled with the wording on that bit. > 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. > Cool. I will try to get this right in the mean time. > > 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. > Good `cause it is easy to generate. ;) - Luke
