Thomas Broyer wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
-1. While we may not all agree on the specifics, I believe the ability
for the client to request specific subsets of entries is going to be
necessary. I definitely agree with the concept of GET'ing the feed
from the collection URI as you suggest and with using the next link
relation, but we should not toss out list-template completely.
Why couldn't it be done in an extension?
It definitely well could be done in an extension, but I think it's one
of those things that hits well above the 80% mark that justifies
inclusion in the spec. I think it would be a mistake not include the
ability to do client-defined subsets within the core.
Would you be +1 if the Pace would only add the ability to GET the
collection URI using atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"next"] paging? I can split the Pace
in two Paces: add the GET to the collection URI, and remove list-template.
That would work.
- James
