I've decided to wait until after the results of the current introspection consensus call before introducing a more formal proposal. The form of the proposal (i.e. a PACE against draft-06 or something else) would potentially vary depending upon whether introspection is/is not in the core.
Thank you Luke, John, Thomas, and Byrne for taking the time to give me some feedback. I appreciate it! -- Kyle On 11/9/05, Byrne Reese <[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, where entries describe collections and categories > > are used to link related collections? > > I think the model presented is workable. However, I must admit, that > having a separate introspection format provides a model reinforced not > just in structure, but in namenclature as well. I really like putting a > "feed" in the context of a "service," "workspace" and "collection." > > Those terms are very resonant for me and for Six Apart, and are terms > that our own engineers have gravitated towards on their own for > describing backend data objects and structures. Which for me, is simply > illustrative of the meaningfullness of that terminology for describing a > model of resources, containers for resources, etc. > > All that being said, I think the proposal is workable, and I don't think > my namenclature preferences should ever stand in the way of progress, > but I thought I would share why I think a separate model is helpful. > > Byrne >
