Re: Collection Item Represenations

[Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 21:49:16 +0200, Asbjørn Ulsberg
<asbjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:54:20 -0400, Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> 
> > 1. Entries - The represenation of entries is via an atom:entry.
> > 2. Comments - Since CommentsAreEntries[2], this is also atom:entry.
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
> > 3. Subjects/Categories - Given the sad state of affairs of the format
> >    there is nothing there to reuse.
> 
> No, we need to invent something here. Not sure what that should be, but it
> should at least be something that could capture all kinds of ontologies;
> both home-grown and public ones (like Dewey or IPTC NewsCodes).
> 
> > 5. Templates - Let's maximize the reuse and let
> >    templates be entries also.
> 
> Why should templates ever be differentiated from «other resources»?
> Because they're mostly textual? What if I want to upload an HTML document
> which is a resource (i.e. an example page) to my entry? Shouldn't that
> deserve its own wrapping as well?
> 
> Nah. Resources are resources, and they can all be managed natively without
> any wrapping, no matter if they're textual or not. I think templates
> should be managed exactly the same way as images, HTML files, text
> documents, and so on.
> 
> For those who disagree with this: why should we _not_ manage templates the
> same way as other resources? What kind of management does templates need
> that images, text documents, HTML files, videos etc., doesn't also need
> (if we look hard enough)?

Why should we *not* manage templates the same way as other 
resources? Well, because as of right now in the APP there are 
only two ways to manage resources, either as a collection
of entries, or as Simple Resources. Are you suggesting to re-use
one of those or to create a new way?

    -joe

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org