[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: New Version Notification for draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02



Yes your interpretation is correct.

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry


From: Davis_Cornelia@xxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 00:47:32 -0400
To: <nikunj.mehta@xxxxxxxxxx>; <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: New Version Notification for draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02

I ask your forgiveness for rehashing an old (a few days old) topic – the suggestion that James Snell made for using a media-type profile to distinguish between an entry’s children and an entry’s descendants.  I think I get it but want to run this by the group for confirmation.

 

In the following (from James):

 

> <link rel="down" type="application/atom+xml;type=feed;profile="" href="" /> <link rel="down" type="application/atom+xml;type=feed;profile="" href="" />

  

a value of profile="" is used to indicate that we want the children to be represented without any expansion and a value of profile="" is used to indicate that we want the children to be represented with a potential expansion.  I confess that initially I thought that this wasn’t a mimetype issue, that we were talking about two different resources – the set of children and the set of descendants.  But  what is proposed here is far more elegant, and is nicely cast as a mime-type choice.  The key is that the link relation “down” only ever returns a child (as application/atom+xml;type=entry) or a feed containing_only children_ (as application/atom+xml;type=feed) – what differs is the representation format of that child (expanded or not).

 

Sound right?

 

And yes, I understand that the mime types and profile designators are most definitely outside the scope of this I-D.

 

Thanks,

Cornelia

 

Cornelia Davis

Senior Technologist

EMC Corporation, Office of the CTO
davis_cornelia@xxxxxxx
p: 805.560.9039
m: 805.452.8941
f: 805.880.0390


From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nikunj R. Mehta
Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 9:58 AM
To: atom-syntax Syntax
Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02

 

Based on feedback, I have simplified the I-D to:

In-line extensions moved to draft-mehta-atom-inline

      Removed down-tree and up-tree relations

      Removed cardinality restrictions on up and down links

 

 

I am also tracking open issues about this I-D publicly at http://code.google.com/p/atom-ext/issues/list. The source for this I-D is also available, if you are interested.

 

Looking forward to comments on the I-D.

 

Begin forwarded message:



From:IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@xxxxxxxx>

Date:June 9, 2009 5:33:57 PM PDT

Subject:New Version Notification for draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02 

 


A new version of I-D, draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-02.txt has been successfuly submitted by Nikunj Mehta and posted to the IETF repository.

Filename:          draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy
Revision:           02
Title:                 Hierarchy Relations for Atom
Creation_date:  2009-06-09
WG ID:                        Independent Submission
Number_of_pages: 7

Abstract:
This specification defines link relations for hierarchical navigation
among Atom feeds and entries.Editorial Note

To provide feedback on this Internet-Draft, join the atom-syntax
mailing list (http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/) [1].



The IETF Secretariat.