On 10/27/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Luke Arno wrote: > > >I am not arguing *for* nesting collections. I am arguing > >*against* needlessly preventing them. > > > > > > > Woo hoo! We're getting somewhere!! > > Your Pace explicitly calls for nested collections in the conceptual model... > > "The conceptual model being expressed is the same as XOXO in that > collections can contain both entries and collections. Collections MAY > have 0 or 1 primary feeds to which entries can be POSTed and from which > the entries considered to be "in" the collection can be retrieved, 0 or > many "search-templates", 0 or many "member-types" ***and 0 or many > nested collections.***" >
Like I said. I have already changed my mind about some things in this pace and am rewriting it. I have not problem leaving explicit nesting language out of the spec, with one exception: the profile itself may have to say one way or the other what is allowed or not inside of what. > ...are you saying that it is ok to NOT add that specific language to the > core so long as whatever format we do choose doesn't rule it out? If > so, then I'm embarassed to say that we've been arguing on the same side > of the fence this whole time. > In both are defense we were dancing around a confusing double negative. :) > >Talk to me about why you want a more limited format. > > > > > >The restriction is de facto. If you are not against a format > >that does not prevent nesting then, do you have any other > >objections to my proposed format? > > > > > > > >If not then can I count on a >=0 from you? > > > > > > > As I've said before, I'm not arguing in favor of or against any > particular format at this point. > > >Do you have any other concerns about my proposal? > > > >If you do not feel the existing format is adequate then > >what are your thoughts on my proposed format. (BTW > >it does need lots of improvement. I am working on a new > >Pace and would sincerely love feedback.) > > > > > > > Still compiling my thoughts on the format. I do have concerns but I > need to first fully understand the minimum core feature requirements for > introspection which is why I've been trying so hard to understand the > need for nested collections. > > I'll get back to you on feedback. What I will suggest now is that your > reworked Pace should specify the exact language you want inserted into > the spec. That'll make it a whole hell of a lot easier to debate this > stuff. > Agreed. I am doing that. That is why it is taking me so long. I am glad that we were not so far apart after all. - Luke
