Hi Dan, --On March 14, 2008 8:12:34 AM -0700 Dan Karp <dkarp@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
/comment-public /comment-private Where "public" would be "shared" and "private" would be per-user.I really like this, as there are very, very few entries that are meaningful as both private and public. How does this affect the statement from section 3.3 of the old document: If the METADATA extension is present, support for shared annotations is REQUIRED, whilst support for private annotations is OPTIONAL.
If server vendors still feel they need to have the option to deny per-user annotations, then we need to add some suitable response codes that would indicate lack of support for a registered per-user annotation.
Another thing: with this new approach there is no way for a client to create arbitrary (unregistered) entry names on a shared or per-user basis, given that the server determines what is shared and per-user based on registrations.
So perhaps we need a slight variant here: /public/comment /private/commentWith these two top-level entry segments, we have a clear distinction between what is shared and what is private. Registered annotations would have to define annotations in each as appropriate. Clients could create unregistered entries in either to achieve the behavior they need. A server that does not support per-user annotations simply does not support /private.
-- Cyrus Daboo