I am really not getting this.
On Tuesday, November 9, 2004, at 04:09 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
There's no way to identify data about the feed itself
Huh? Isn't the stuff in atom:head data about the feed?
which is usually an output resource (generated in some way).
...?
[snip]
though it does add a handy way to do on-demand comments and such, as shown in the second example.Let me see if I'm understand this correctly: The first example shows a "normal feed". The <entry>'s <post> is the URI to post comments on that entry to. The second example is the feed created when someone posts a comment to that URI. Okay, I finally get that much (I think the explanation could be more clear--I may post a suggestion later).
Question: what is the URI from which one is to fetch the comment feed? How does one find that?
On Tuesday, November 9, 2004, at 04:43 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
What makes me nervous is we're asserting that a <head> and an <entry> are the same, except that <head> has to have a generator... it smells like, when I'm building some software, and I catch myself thinking "gee, this thing and that thing are almost the same thing" and I try to unify them and find extra arguments and variables creeping into methods to make up for the fact that they're not *quite* the same. It seems to me that <head> and <entry> are two different bundles of metadata, in which a lot of the same elements can appear.Yeah, that's my take on it too. I don't see enough benefit coming out of this to justify the change. Separating things in the spec, even if it results in duplication, seems more clear. If only an element or two was different, that would be one thing, but it seems to me that the differences run much deeper.
