On 11 Jul 2006, at 19:19, James M Snell wrote:
There's no reason why a separate sync URI could not be offered by the
collection.
Quite possibly. But the current working group may also start looking
very foolish if they can't get things to be better than the
MetaWeblog API [1]. So if anyone thinks that by releasing this spec
early they will be able to start trumpeting some horns, I would
seriously recommend everyone to be really hush about the release. [2]
Also the whole thing is topsy turvy. You have an ill defined
Introspection document that you don't need but wish to keep, yet
something serious like being able to sync, is not desired. If you
don't want sync, then at least remove all the other fluff in the
spec. Cut the spec right down to the bare bones: GET, PUT, POST, DELETE.
Henry
[1] http://bblfish.net/blog/page7.html#2005/06/20/22-28-18-208
[2] http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/bblfish/20060710
Home page: http://bblfish.net/
Sun Blog: http://blogs.sun.com/bblfish/
Thomas Broyer wrote:
2006/7/11, Robert Sayre:
On 7/11/06, Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...lots of right answers, IMHO...
The catch is that there's no reason to define any of this right now.
The document would get way bigger, and since its optional, it can be
defined later.
No, it can't, because of this:
Note that we would have to state that if a server offered Strong
Synchronization then the collection would have to be ordered by
the time each resource was modified, and not by atom:updated.
and the current draft mandating ordering by atom:updated.
