Robert Sayre wrote:
On 10/26/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not arguing for the status quo. Never have. What I am arguing is
that you have yet to demonstrate a technical reason why collections need
to be hierarchically arranged under other collections... and, to my
knowledge, you have not yet answered that question.
That is, without any snarky language, why is (a) better than (b).
There is no right answer. XOXO lets you do either. What makes you
think my draft makes implementors choose one?
The fact that your draft gives only a single example showing (a) and
offers no further explanation.
Regarding the XOXO approach in general... would you consider the
following to be an acceptable service outline?
Please read the XOXO specification before wasting WG time. That's not
valid XOXO, and there can be no expectation of interoperability if
that's not the case. See section 1.4, " The XOXO Document Type".
Oh, golly, look how easy that was to screw up. Sorry about that.
Replace all the <img /> tags with <br /> tags and run the question again.
- James
