RE: We can't use RSD

[Daniel Berlinger <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> It is a lot more verbose than what has been suggested for introspection,

>From the other note... http://dannyayers.com/2003/08/atom-s.htm using the examples you provide...

It is somewhat more verbose, but it also allows for the possibility of an engine supporting more than one API. Start adding that to the introspection file and they'll even out almost entirely...

It might be another conversation for elsewhere, but there doesn't seem to be any limitation on what can be returned in an introspection file... I quote the current version of the RFC "Additionally, new facets may be added either through vendor extension or follow-on RFCs." yet there's nothing that says that vendor extensions need to be namespaced, or whether they can simply include new elements in the introspection space and ignored by clients that do not understand them or whatever... 

> Personally I'd rather see
> something written from scratch for consistency, but if we're going to use an
> existing standard we might as well use one of the more generally deployed
> service description formats such as WSDL. Blogging might be an island now,
> but it won't remain so forever.

The other formats are least as stylistically diverse and verbose as RSD, so they offer the same "compromise" to use your term. Whether they are better choices is, I guess, a different conversation.

d.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Daniel Berlinger
> > Sent: 10 August 2003 07:52
> > To: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: We can't use RSD
> >
> >
> >
> > Danny,
> >
> > Can you please tell me where the "compromise" is?
> >
> > d.
> >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, this sounds as barmy as any conspiracy theory.
> > There's nothing in
> > > Daniel Berlinger's posts to warrant such flaming, except
> > perhaps the use of
> > > "yuck", which I must admit sets alarm bells ringing. However, I do agree
> > > with the conclusion, no RSD. I think the best approach is to write the
> > > introspection part of the spec based on the requirements, rather than
> > > compromise to what's already deployed. We don't need to use RSD.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Danny.
> > >
>