Re: A question regarding multiple content

[Sam Ruby <rubys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeremy Gray wrote:
> For a while now I have noticed the vast majority (if not all) examples of
> entry XML including (or at least acknowledging the allowed use of) multiple
> content.
>
> However, a long-standing poll on multiple content (located at
> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/ContentDiscussion) shows multiple
> content losing to what I'll call the "zero or one" crowd by a notable margin
> (on percentage, obviously, not sheer numbers).
>
> With that in mind, my question is this: how did entry content evolve to its
> current multiple content state given the results of said poll?

My two cents, for what it is worth.

It may very well be the case that for syndication, a single content is
the right answer.  However, it might also be the case the multiple
content in one form or another is required by an API.  Either for
atomicity (no pun intended).  Or simply because the server will assign
the URLs of the various pieces.

Until we have more experience with the API (read: large scale
implementations), I would not like to close off this option.  Nor would
I like to prematurely lock down the syndication format opening up the
possibiity of inconsistencies with the API.

All that being said, if it turns out the multiple content is not needed
by either the API nor the syndication format, I'm OK with that.

- Sam Ruby