On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I personally thought the intention of the spec was to be able to produce the > same kind of information, in, well currently 2 formats, but that might > expand into more formats in the future, so that app developers with a > certain preference (json or atom) can have the information as they want.
OK, this is something I don't understand and would appreciate help understanding. I thought OpenSocial was a set of two specifications: a JavaScript API and and AtomPub+extentions API that gave non-browser clients access to some/all of the same data that you could get to via the JS API. If that is true: 1. Why is there any discussion of the "specification" of the JSON interface? I can see implementing a JSON based back end that the JS API uses and "documenting" it, but where does the need to turn that into a "specification" come from? 2. Has it been decided that the non JS-API has to be full parity with the JS API? If so, does it have to be full parity in the first release, or just eventually? > I think that does bring the discussion back to the spec list though, should > the Atom part of RESTful API be completely rfc4287 and rfc5023 compliant and > support all it's features? I responded to this earlier in the thread, either do a full implementation or don't do them at all. -joe -- Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
