Re: Collection Item Represenations

[Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joe Gregorio wrote:

> let's just talk about the representations 
> of the individual resources,

I'm assuming this is what happens when you GET an individual resource, 
and is not necessarily the representation that appears in a collection 
representation.

> 1. Entries - The represenation of entries is via an atom:entry.
> 2. Comments - Since CommentsAreEntries[2], this is also atom:entry.

+1

> 3. Subjects/Categories - PaceCategoriesFacet:
>
> Or we could just reuse DC: 

PaceCategoriesFacet seems like a good start. Couldn't a post have 
dc:subjects AND categories? The concepts don't quite line up for me.

>      
> 4. User - Reuse the Person Construct from the Atom Format:

Seems like a good start, but the "User" resource probably has more 
properties than that.

> 5. Templates - Let's maximize the reuse and let
>     templates be entries also.

-1. I think you are the only person who's spoken up in favor of using 
entries for templates.

http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg00125.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg00126.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg00147.html

"Different kinds of resources have different properties and different 
expected semantics, and overloading the notion of "entry" just forces us 
to tag it with what kind of thing it *really* is, and then special-case 
the required features. Users would want to interact with templates 
differently than entries, even if client software would treat them the 
same, syntactically."

I favor a uniform appearance when appearing collection representations, 
and template media types for GET/PUT.

I'm proposing that a response to a GET looks like this:

   HTTP/1.1 200 OK
   Content-Type: application/vnd.joe.templatelanguage

   ...vendor specific bits...

I'll write a Pace for this, if that needs to happen right now.

> 6. Other Resources - According to PaceSimpleResourcePosting
>    the representation of each of these resource is their native
>    representation.

+1. I think everyone agrees on this.

Robert Sayre