As a developer, I have to concur with David. With sparse/ambiguous documentation we are all floundering against our individually reverse-engineered understanding of the client-server contract.
kind regards Roy On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 4:57 AM, David Bullock <dtbull...@gmail.com> wrote: > Like I said, if you put this in the official documentation, then I'll file > a reproducible bug against it if I can. If you're not willing to put it in > the official documenation, there's not much point either of us attempting to > explain the behaviour we see. > > In the end, I want predictability from this API. It would be useful > (mainly for debugging and human readability of the feed) if the <title/> > were bound to something useful. The leftmost of the declared columns would > be fine (although I don't get that consistently - I suspect it has something > to do with the column insertions and moving-around-operations that have > occured in my spreadsheet prior to me attempting to define a table on it). > Better would be if I could define in the table definition which column I > regarded was a primary key (although in practice, it'll often be my > leftmost). > > By not committing to the *intended* behaviour in the documentation, Google > is: > > a) making life hard for me, since I don't have a specification I can rely > on > b) making life hard for its own developers, since they don't have a > specification they must implement > c) wasting your and my time in having this discussion (again) > > Please listen to me and fix the documentation. I am very disempowered in > this discussion, because I can't actually appeal to any authority and say > how it ought to be. Even you are only reporting what you observe to be the > case. That isn't the same thing as committing to a behaviour, and that's > what we clients of the API need. > > sincerely, > David. >
