Re: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-04 Thread Roy T. Fielding
On Feb 3, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Tim Bray wrote: On reflection, I am growing very negative on almost all of the Organization Paces, including FeedRecursive, PaceEntriesElement, PaceCollection. Here's why: they represent to increase the level of abstraction in Atom, and in my experience, when the

Re: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-04 Thread Tim Bray
On Feb 4, 2005, at 9:10 AM, Robert Sayre wrote: My interest is in simplification, not abstraction. For example, the draft wastes a lot of text talking in the abstract about various constructs rather than simply defining one element for each of those constructs. Person, Date, and Text constructs

Re: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-03 Thread Robert Sayre
Tim Bray wrote: On reflection, I am growing very negative on almost all of the Organization Paces, including FeedRecursive, PaceEntriesElement, PaceCollection. Here's why: they represent to increase the level of abstraction in Atom, and in my experience, when the goal is interoperability

Re: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-03 Thread Robert Sayre
Graham wrote: On 4 Feb 2005, at 2:37 am, Tim Bray wrote: On the other hand, the notion that sometimes you have collections of feeds is easy to understand, easy to verbalize, and widely evidenced in practice (cf PubSub friends), if not perhaps widely seen outside of geekland. So I think I'm +1

Re: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-03 Thread Tim Bray
On Feb 3, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Graham wrote: On the other hand, the notion that sometimes you have collections of feeds is easy to understand, easy to verbalize, and widely evidenced in practice (cf PubSub friends), if not perhaps widely seen outside of geekland. So I think I'm +1 on

RE: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-03 Thread Bob Wyman
Tim Bray wrote: So I think I'm +1 on PaceAggregationDocument. (And I think if we adopted that we could certainly lose PaceHeadInEntry, right Bob?) -1... PaceAggregationDocument does not seem to me to add much benefit for all the costs that it entails. I'm particularly

Re: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
+1 - someone else made a comment about OPML which really hit the spot; if you try to make a format do all things, it does most of them badly... On Feb 3, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Tim Bray wrote: On reflection, I am growing very negative on almost all of the Organization Paces, including

Re: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-03 Thread James Snell
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:08:43 -0500, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tim Bray wrote: So I think I'm +1 on PaceAggregationDocument. (And I think if we adopted that we could certainly lose PaceHeadInEntry, right Bob?) -1... PaceAggregationDocument does not seem to me to

Re: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-03 Thread Robert Sayre
James Snell wrote: On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:08:43 -0500, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 4. Massive changes need to be made to the specification when we don't have a great deal of time left before we're supposed to be doing a Last Call. This is dangerous. +1. Big +1. I really regret

Re: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-03 Thread Antone Roundy
On Thursday, February 3, 2005, at 09:08 PM, Bob Wyman wrote: I see two non-compelling benefits to PaceAggregationDocument over PaceHeadInEntry: 1. In the case where a feed will contain more than one entry from a foreign feed, you only have to include the atom:head data once. Thus, there would