We definitely want to have documents on dev.twitter.com with best practices and guildelines. That will be key. We're looking for everyone to help devise the rules of the road.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:59 AM, gabriele renzi <rff....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Marcel Molina <mar...@twitter.com> wrote: > > More namespace nesting would of course increase people's ability to > > taxonomize. It's a splippery slope though and we are trying to balance > > expressiveness with simplicity. Providing for arbitrarily nested > namespaces > > increases complexity considerably both from an implementation perspective > > and a comprehension perspective. > > I am not in favour of arbitrarrily nested, quads are ok to express > almost anything useful apart from temporal logic :) (consider a > namespace app: subject-verb-object). > > But I'm ok with you choice, just, as i said, can we at least put some > guidelines so we can avoid unintentional conflicts among implementors? > E.g. "if you want to store triples and avoid conflicts with other > applications use a namespace such as yourapp:subnamespace - key - > value" > > > -- > Subscription settings: > http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/subscribe?hl=en > -- Marcel Molina Twitter Platform Team http://twitter.com/noradio