[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Converging?

To: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Converging?
From: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 18:56:23 -0500
Cc: Atom Protocol <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>, Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Macintosh/20040803)

Tim Bray wrote:

and so on. The word "resource" is a distraction. These things are services, best thought of services, and the URIs identify the services.


"Edit Service"? How about "Source Entry"?
"Category Service"? How about "Category Collection"?

"best thought of as services"... I guess I don't get it. What's an example of a document written this way?

Only web architecture wankers worry about resources.

LOL! I wasn't suggesting we cover the spec in "representation" and "resource", other than say "______ is a resource" once, at the first mention of a nice descriptive noun.

Robert Sayre

References:
- Converging?
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: Converging?
  - From: Robert Sayre
- Re: Converging?
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: Converging?
  - From: Joe Gregorio
- Re: Converging?
  - From: Robert Sayre
- Re: Converging?
  - From: Tim Bray

Prev by Date: Re: Converging?
Previous by thread: Re: Converging?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread