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

Re: Reviving the features draft?




Brian Smith wrote:
Jan Algermissen wrote:
Keep in mind though, that I am viewing this in the sense of 'collection X implements behaviour Y, and much less in the sense
of 'collection X has capability Y'. My use cases are more like
'client wants to place an order and thus must look for a
collection that is an order acceptor. As I said in the original
post: late binding of client and server based on type.

Brian Smith wrote:
Unsurprisingly then, it hasn't been widely adopted even though
it has been around forever.
Hmm, I think it is more that only very few people practically apply APP to non-publishing contexts yet and just do not need the
collection type refinement.

<link rel='http://example.org/orderProcessor'
      href='http://example.org/collection'/>

This way you can link directly to the collection instead of linking to a
service document that links to the collection. It works inside of
service documents too:

  <app:collection href='http://example.org/collection'>
      <link rel='http://example.org/orderProcessor'
href='http://example.org/collection'/> </app:collection>


Link is the wrong markup for this. Use atom:category to categorize resources. If you need something more formal, then use RDF.

Bill