Eric Scheid wrote:
On 28/10/05 9:50 AM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* A single mime type for introspection documents?
or: one mime type for each type of introspection documents.
consider the example of a XOXO introspection document vs a XMDP
introspection document ... they would both have application/xhtml+xml as
mime types. How would a client app know which document to retrieve if it
only understands one of the two formats?
Eh? I'm not following you. XMDP is a metadata profile, not an
introspection format.
What MUST be factored into the syntax used for introspection?
What SHOULD be factored into the syntax used for introspection?
What WOULD BE NICE to have factored into the syntax used for introspection?
What WOULDN'T MATTER if is was factored into the syntax used for
introspection?
What WOULDN'T MATTER if is was not factored into the syntax used for
introspection?
Maybe all these questions are moot. Could we not go this path: the core APP
spec talks about discoverability of introspection, but not detail of the
format. A complementary spec for each format can then be written detailing
the format. This model also leaves the door open for someone inventing an
even better introspection format down the road.
Politically, WG wise, life would be nicer too. The XOXO advocates can write
a "XOXO Introspection Format For Atom" spec, the XMP advocates can write a
"XMDP Introspection Format For Atom", (and so on) ... and there'll be no
shit fight as to who gets their format into the Atom Publishing Protocol
spec.
Ok, so we have a new question to add to the list: is an Introspection
document format a core requirement of the Atom Publishing Protocol? Is
it essential to the basic operation of the protocol?
I've created a wiki page to help us keep track of this.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/IntrospectionRequirements
- James
