[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-14.txt
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 08:40:21 +0100, Eric Scheid
<eric.scheid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(btw, I know Alex, and can vouch for his clue quotient. The fact the spec
presents challenges to him is worrying)
I can vouch for this as well. Not that we should push everything back to
zero "just" because Alexander has difficulties understanding this, but as
both Lisa Dusseault and now Alexander has expressed some level of
confusion about the specification, I think it's worth taking into account
and do something about it instead of just argumenting for the sake of
argumentation.
do we want to change these to "application/atom+xml;type=entry"?
Most definately!
The protocol defines two kinds of Members - Entry and Media resources.
s/Entry and Media resources/Entry Resource, and Media Resource/
ie. make an unambiguous connection to the two definitions which follow
Yes, that would make it more clarifying.
These paragraphs are a jumbled mix of data model, operations, and
underlying mechanisms, and it might be helpful to arrange them into
that general order (starting from most abstract, leading to most
specific), then tweaking the prose to suit:
[5] (about collections)
[8] (what collections contain)
[7] (about members)
[9] (about Service Documents)
[3] (operations, and what they affect)
[1] (operations defined with HTTP)
[4] (refer HTTP spec)
[2] (about URI space and representations)
[6] (about URIs vs IRIs)
+1. That would read much easier than the current text, if articulated
correctly.
--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»