In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:34:18 -0500, Bob Wyman > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think the important point is that there probably isn't a great > > deal of justification for having different payload formats for these > > protocols. If we strip away the XMPP and HTTP "transport" wrappers, > > overhead, etc. I don't see any reason why it would be useful to have > > different messages. > > Honestly I do not know enough about the use cases of the XMPP based > mechanism to pass judgement on their payload formats. What I can say, > however, is that for the Atom Notification Protocol (ANP) approach, > nothing more than the entry and feed elements are necessary. If we > can get some alignment between this and the XMPP stuff, wonderful, but > I'd very much like to avoid adding anything else to the ANP payloads Well, I think we need to have consistency on what Bob is calling the "message" or "payload", which in both cases would be pure Atom, no (ignoring the "wrapper" elements that, for instance, define semantics in XMPP pubsub). I'll review both documents more closely to make sure that we have consistency. Peter
