Re: Introspection and RSD

["Bill Kearney" <wkearney99@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Is there a reason not to allow for both?

I'm not convinced it's a good idea to depend on the HTML pages containing the
correct info.  The people responsible for the 'look and feel' of the HTML pages
may or may not be to the same people responsible for the maintenance and
operation of backend interfaces.  So expecting the HTML people to put up with
and properly maintain what might be a LOT of metadata tags in the head section
is asking for trouble.

So using an external document seems like a much safer proposition.  As to
whether the format should be RSD, well, that's another thread.

-Bill Kearney

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Gregorio" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:45 AM
Subject: Introspection and RSD


>
> Dare Obasanjo has posted some comments on draft 06 of the
> AtomAPI [1]. His first comment is about Introspection:
>
> "Too much indirection when attempting to discover information about the
> services a site supports. I have to hit the website's homepage which has
> a LINK element which points to an RSD file which to an introspection
> file that describes the features supported by the website before I can
> figure out which Atom API services teh website supports. At least one of
> those steps is unnecessary. I don't see why the link element can't
> directly point to the introspection file."
>
> I agree that there are too many levels of indirection. On
> one hand the AtomAPI initally started with only the Introspection
> file, RSD was added later. On the other hand RSD is already
> deployed for editing tools and it seems a shame to ignore
> that installed base.
>
> What do you think, should we drop RSD, or maybe put all the
> functionality of the Introspection file into an RSD file?
>
> Thanks,
> -joe
>
> [1] http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/3/133458/0512
>
> --
> http://BitWorking.org
> http://WellFormedWeb.org
>
>
>