Re: [Sugar-devel] Object Bundles review and inclusion to 0.86/Feature_List request

2009-07-29 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 05:17:45PM -0400, Samuel Klein wrote: > Interop is important. It would be useful to be interoperable with the > default OCW format as well : an imsmanifest xml file in the root > directory. > > I'd recommend eventually moving to a manifest format that supports > including a

Re: [Sugar-devel] Object Bundles review and inclusion to 0.86/Feature_List request

2009-07-29 Thread Samuel Klein
Interop is important. It would be useful to be interoperable with the default OCW format as well : an imsmanifest xml file in the root directory. I'd recommend eventually moving to a manifest format that supports including a number of other files -- so whatever location Sugar / the Journal looks f

Re: [Sugar-devel] Object Bundles review and inclusion to 0.86/Feature_List request

2009-07-29 Thread Martin Langhoff
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:12 AM, Aleksey Lim wrote: > ..and in my mind the purpose of OB was keeping metadata while tranfering > Journal objects between sugar-nonsugar-sugar not broader meaning well, file/content exchange! :-) If we are going to write the code for a format, and we can write our ow

Re: [Sugar-devel] Object Bundles review and inclusion to 0.86/Feature_List request

2009-07-29 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 05:38:31PM +, Aleksey Lim wrote: > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 03:35:05PM +0200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > Very quick (and possibly unfair) review: there are several "manifest + > > metadata + files, all zipped up" formats, some of them very popular in > > education. > > >

Re: [Sugar-devel] Object Bundles review and inclusion to 0.86/Feature_List request

2009-07-28 Thread Aleksey Lim
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 03:35:05PM +0200, Martin Langhoff wrote: > Very quick (and possibly unfair) review: there are several "manifest + > metadata + files, all zipped up" formats, some of them very popular in > education. > > In other words, this fits IMS-CP to a T. Yes, we may want to initially

Re: [Sugar-devel] Object Bundles review and inclusion to 0.86/Feature_List request

2009-07-28 Thread Martin Langhoff
Very quick (and possibly unfair) review: there are several "manifest + metadata + files, all zipped up" formats, some of them very popular in education. In other words, this fits IMS-CP to a T. Yes, we may want to initially support a subset of IMS-CP, or add some additional bits that are of use to

Re: [Sugar-devel] Object Bundles review and inclusion to 0.86/Feature_List request

2009-07-28 Thread Tomeu Vizoso
Martin, SJ, do you have anything to say? Do you know anyone in the field who has anything to say about this? Thanks, Tomeu On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 07:46, Aleksey Lim wrote: > Hi all, > > Object Bundles feature page > http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Object_Bundles > > OB deprecates .xol an

[Sugar-devel] Object Bundles review and inclusion to 0.86/Feature_List request

2009-07-26 Thread Aleksey Lim
Hi all, Object Bundles feature page http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/go/Features/Object_Bundles OB deprecates .xol and .xoj bundles(but can import them) and provide major OB proposal's feature [1]. Tweaked Browse[2] uploads[3] OB instead of raw files the original idea was to upload bundles only if HTTP