On 10/29/05, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Luke Arno wrote: > > > I don't disagree with your points (except your > > characterization of microformats but this is not the > > list for that). I think we are just looking at the APP > > as having different goals. > > Microformat snarkiness withdrawn. My bad. >
That is ok: I can hardly claim a derth of snark. :) > > > You call them "protocol directives". What protocol? What > > directives of APP need to go in a box? > > The current directives belong to APP. I can live with "control > directive" or "directive". > If we really need them then maybe we need a box. I don't think we need any directives, atm. My current thinking for draft is that it is one example of a broad set of workflow cases that should be handled with multiple collections. My current thinking on significant is that if the client tries to update updated, it thinks it is sending a significant update. > > > I guess the disconnect in our mental models here is this: > > APP as just a publishing protocol or APP as distributed > > applications protocol. I think APP will be an even better > > substrate for application protocols to build on to if we > > stay out of their processing models and sticks to the > > humble task of pushing entries around. > > If we had a uniform structure and/or processing model acting as a > substrate, fine. We don't. So I'm unconvinced this won't turn out to be > an unholy crapfest of special cases as new directives/controls/whatnot > come on board. Feels like building on sand. Actually, I know what it > feels like - it feels like an Ant script. > Ouch. Invoking the Ant boogie man is dirty pool :) I would guess that all but the simplest 20 percent of distributed applications built on APP will need such a box so it makes a very good extension. The question is what percentage of APP implementations will be using the APP to create some distributed application? 50%, 20%? I think most implementations will just be pushing entries around. Blogs, wikis content management... Systems that do more (ecommerce transactions or what have you) over the APP will need to decide on appropriate protocols. I am *all for* putting language in an implementers guide that encourages implementations with extensive processing models to use some kind of box. > (I fully appreciate this is a elegantist what-if argument and if I turn > out to be wrong, great) > Again. If we are talking about a distributed application protocol, a clear way to contain processing instructions is the way to go. I do not think you are wrong there. I just think that it is out of scope for a publishing protocol. - Luke
