Yes your interpretation is correct. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:47:32 To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02 I ask your forgiveness for rehashing an old (a few days old) topic - the suggestion that James Snell made for using a media-type profile to distinguish between an entry's children and an entry's descendants. I think I get it but want to run this by the group for confirmation. In the following (from James): > <link rel="down" type="application/atom+xml;type=feed;profile=tree" href="..." /> <link rel="down" type="application/atom+xml;type=feed;profile=flat" href="..." /> a value of profile=flat is used to indicate that we want the children to be represented without any expansion and a value of profile=tree is used to indicate that we want the children to be represented with a potential expansion. I confess that initially I thought that this wasn't a mimetype issue, that we were talking about two different resources - the set of children and the set of descendants. But what is proposed here is far more elegant, and is nicely cast as a mime-type choice. The key is that the link relation "down" only ever returns a child (as application/atom+xml;type=entry) or a feed containing_only children_ (as application/atom+xml;type=feed) - what differs is the representation format of that child (expanded or not). Sound right? And yes, I understand that the mime types and profile designators are most definitely outside the scope of this I-D. Thanks, Cornelia Cornelia Davis Senior Technologist EMC Corporation, Office of the CTO [email protected] p: 805.560.9039 m: 805.452.8941 f: 805.880.0390 ________________________________ From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nikunj R. Mehta Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:58 AM To: atom-syntax Syntax Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02 Based on feedback, I have simplified the I-D to: In-line extensions moved to draft-mehta-atom-inline Removed down-tree and up-tree relations Removed cardinality restrictions on up and down links HTML: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02 Text: http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02.txt <http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-mehta-atom-inline-00.txt> Diff: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02.txt I am also tracking open issues about this I-D publicly at http://code.google.com/p/atom-ext/issues/list. The source for this I-D is also available, if you are interested. Looking forward to comments on the I-D. Nikunj http://o-micron.blogspot.com <http://o-micron.blogspot.com/> Begin forwarded message: From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <[email protected]> Date: June 9, 2009 5:33:57 PM PDT To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: New Version Notification for draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02 A new version of I-D, draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02.txt has been successfuly submitted by Nikunj Mehta and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy Revision: 02 Title: Hierarchy Relations for Atom Creation_date: 2009-06-09 WG ID: Independent Submission Number_of_pages: 7 Abstract: This specification defines link relations for hierarchical navigation among Atom feeds and entries.Editorial Note To provide feedback on this Internet-Draft, join the atom-syntax mailing list (http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/) [1]. The IETF Secretariat.
