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

Re: Collection convergence?

To: Ezra Cooper <ezra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Collection convergence?
From: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:40:34 -0500
Cc: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>, Joe Gregorio <joe.gregorio@xxxxxxxxx>, Atom Protocol <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
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: <>
Reply-to: mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.9 (Windows/20041103)

Ezra Cooper wrote:

Waiting around is a bummer, but maybe the change proposals would be more coherent if people had a new draft to work with. Also, what are we going to do about the "Atom Administration" draft? Are we going to to work on that now, or wait till the Basic draft is done?

This is my question too; I can't make a change proposal without knowing what document I'm trying to change. Do we have a clear divison between the Basic and Admin documents? Is Basic only concerning entries, or are there any other objects we need to deal with?

Ezra

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceTwoProtocolDocs (accepted)

"The "Basic" document will cover introspection, collection traversal, entry creation/update/deletion, and non-entry-resource creation/update/deletion."

Robert Sayre

References:
- RE: Collection convergence?
  - From: Ezra Cooper

Prev by Date: RE: Collection convergence?
Previous by thread: RE: Collection convergence?
Next by thread: FW: The Sorry State of Affairs in Weblog APIs
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread