Re: PaceIntrospection [Was Re: Knowing which resources arerelated: Discovery element?]

[steve jenson <stevej@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's my take on how the introspection format should look:

<?xml version="1.0" ?>
<introspection xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#";>
  <feed>
    <title mode="escaped">Blog 1</title>
    <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1</id>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://blog1.blogspot.com/"; title="Blog 
1" type="application/xhtml+xml" />
    <link rel="service.post" href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/1"; 
title="Blog 1" type="application/x.atom+xml" />
    <link rel="service.feed" href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/1"; 
title="Blog 1" type="application/x.atom+xml" />
  </feed>
  <feed>
    <title mode="escaped">Blog 2</title>
    <id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2</id>
    <link rel="alternate" href="http://blog2.blogspot.com/"; title="Blog 
2" type="application/xhtml+xml" />
    <link rel="service.post" href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/2"; 
title="Blog 2" type="application/x.atom+xml" />
    <link rel="service.feed" href="http://www.blogger.com/atom/2"; 
title="Blog 2" type="application/x.atom+xml" />
  </feed>
</introspection>

It harkens back to the discussion that Joe Gregorio, Adriaan 
Tijsseling, and I had a few months ago starting here: 
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg03478.html


-steve


On Jun 5, 2004, at 4:04 PM, David Stewart wrote:

> Cool, I like the PaceIntrospection and think we ought to revive it.
>
> If we're already breaking the "feed-at-top-only" rule with "entry" 
> then ...
> Introspection is probably fine, too.  I don't see a reason for that 
> rule
> anyway.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sayre [mailto:mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 3:49 PM
> To: Joe Gregorio
> Cc: Atom Syntax; David Stewart
> Subject: Re: PaceIntrospection [Was Re: Knowing which resources 
> arerelated:
> Discovery element?]
>
> On 6/5/04 2:44 PM, "Joe Gregorio" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > There used to be the Introspection file in older drafts of the
> > AtomAPI. Seems like a good time to reintroduce the idea:
> >
> > http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceIntrospection?action=show
>
> Makes sense to me, but now we have three different root elements for 
> Atom:
>
> <feed>, <entry>, and now <introspection>
>
> Practically speaking, this is no big deal, but the format specification
> currently says only documents with <feed> root elements are considered 
> Atom
> documents. Thoughts?
>
> Robert Sayre