Luke Arno wrote:
On 10/26/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Luke, similar arguments were presented in favor of nesting Atom feeds
within other feeds. Note that we did not do that either. What I am
talking about is what belongs in the *core* of the Atom Protocol
Specification. Robert wants his XOXO service outline thing that supports
arbitrary nesting of collections included normatively in the spec as THE
way of doing introspection and yet neither of you have demonstrated that
arbitrary nesting of collections is a core requirement. If you and
Robert want to create an extension that defines how nesting can be
achieved, go for it.
I have not advocated required support. My preferred
introspection format simply does not *prevent*
hierarchy. That is a nice straw man you have built
there.
- Luke
Nope, no straw man. I'm basing my argument specifically on Robert's
proposed XOXO approach. I'm all for language that does not *prevent*
hierarchy, I'm just against baking hierarchy into the core the way the
XOXO introspection proposal would do. Given the description of the
service outline in the basic draft, there is nothing that tells me that
support for nested collections is optional, which means that a server
implementation could require it, meaning that I have to include support
for it in my client. There's no straw man here. I simpy do not want to
have to support nested collections in an implementation of the core Atom
protocol without seeing any evidence or use cases that such nesting is
required. So far I have seen no such evidence or use cases.
- James
