On 11/8/05, Luke Arno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/8/05, Kyle Marvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Not that we need *more* options, but when we do introspection (whether > > in core or elsewhere), I'm wondering why we need to invent any new XML > > format. Why can't the introspection document just (itself) be an > > Atom feed, > > This is what I keep saying and saying. > > I posted a pace last night.
Yes, I think my informal proposal and your PACE end up at largely the same place if you looked at what would happen on the wire. Your approach is probably more abstract, mine is probably more incremental... which is beauty (or less controversial ;) is in the eye of the beholder. If I were to author a PACE independently based upon my description it would only replace Section 7 of draft-06. I wasn't necessarily trying to purge collections but was trying to end the format wars by offering a neutral (and hopefully agreeable) middle ground. Thanks for the reference (and being persistent enough to help me get the idea). Cheers! -- Kyle -- Kyle
