RE: We don't need RSD

["Danny Ayers" <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The reason I asked for a summary was so it wouldn't be necessary to go
chasing around other references, and perhaps misinterpreting. Repeat for
everyone else that's interested. Ah well.

So perhaps it looks like :

1. read HTML, find LINK tag to introspection file
2. read introspection file

Which sounds reasonable - the introspection file is carrying out the job
suggested for the RSD file.

Near to this material, the spec looks to me to be introducing some
inconsistency  : autodiscovery of service.edit and service.comment seems
very similar, yet just different enough to be confusing ;-)

5.1.1 Introspection Discovery
5.8.1.1 HTML Auto-discovery

[[
5.8  Adding Comments
"This part of the AtomAPI does not use the URIs listed in the Introspection
file."
]]

I'm not sure of the wisdom in leaving them out on the grounds that the
current implementations of trackback etc. won't use them. A more unified
system might find it easier to start in the introspection file, at least for
the URI base.

A minor point :

[[
5.8.1.2  Atom Feed Auto-Discovery
"There is a <comment/> element in each Entry that is used to provide the
location of the URI that accepts comment POSTs. This is providing the same
information as the link tag does in HTML. "
]]

This seems to be a long way from the common-sense reading of what a
<comment/> element would contain, so I suggest renaming it to something like
<commenttarget/>

Cheers,
Danny.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Pilgrim [mailto:f8dy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 09 August 2003 20:23
> To: danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: We don't need RSD
>
>
> > I'd be very grateful if you could summarise your current
> thought on how we
> > should do it in the same manner as the list below.
> >
> >>1. read HTML, find LINK tag to RSD
> >>2. read RSD, find url of introspection file
> >>3. read introspection file
> >
>
> http://bitworking.org/rfc/draft-gregorio-07.html#rfc.section.5.1.1
>
>