James, Hmmm.... I know we've discussed this, but after thinking about it more and > looking through the examples, I'm becoming increasingly less convinced that > we need a distinction between "down" and "down-tree". One should simply > assume that "down" could point to a child entry or child feed and that those > children could potentially also be parents. Yes, that possibly increases the > processing compexity but I think it simplifies the model overall.
I agree, and I've implemented hierarchy using strictly l...@rel="down" instead of "down-tree" for the same reason. > I think we can address this by eliminating the restriction that "down" and > "up" must always point to Atom feed documents and by changing the > cardinality rules for those links. That restriction, I think, is arbitrary > and unnecessary I agree about the type: it could be useful to use a "down" link on something else than a feed. Not sure about cardinality though, moving from a tree model to a graph model really make things more complex (more flexible and powerful too). > Unlike any of the other methods discussed, this approach would allow > clients that don't understand the hierarchy model to still understand that > there is some kind of link relationship with each of the individual child > resources and eliminates the need to include the extraneous atom:feed > metadata. > > Note that this is the same basic approach taken by my comment thread > extension (in-reply-to). > The hierarchy I-D used to have ah:count to indicate the number of entries in the child feed. Now that Nikunj removed ah:count from the draft, do you believe that thr:count from your Atom threading extension could be used on l...@type="application/atom+xml;type=feed" for hierarchy ? Hadrien
