Re: generic minimal set desired in a data syndication message?

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

Ian Graham <ian.graham@utoronto.ca> wrote:

>> 1) why do we need the URL for the specific version, if it's already in the
>> file.
>> 2) SOAP and XML-RPC seem like overkill for the UUID. What's wrong with a
>> plain old URL? Or URI, if you must.
> 
> I don't quite understand (1).

Why do you need to point to the content if the content is contained in the
XML file that has the pointer? But I think this is explained below.

> So, <accessinfo> contains both explicit routes to retrieving this
> resource plus optional metadata about a generic interface to the
> service providing such resources.

Ahh, I see. In that case you'll need to be more descriptive than XML-RPC or
SOAP -- you'll need to start creating these specs that allow people to
navigate in resource-space. Perhaps it would be better described with a URI,
that could point to docs on the protocol.

> Please don't
> get too wrapped up in my sometimes awkward notation (in this case the
> thing started as an attribute value): what's imporatnt is whether or not
> this is an important concept that's worth having in a core syndication
> spec. I'd be happy with any suitable notation -- but it only matters if
> this turns out to be an important component for a syndicated message.

Sorry, I'm not qualified to discuss that, only to be picky about
implementation. :-)

> Thanks for the feedback.  I'm pleased that some others also think this is
> worth looking into in more detail.

No problem, although I'm sorry I'm not expert enough to decide what the data
set should be. This looks like a good start though.

-- 
        Aaron Swartz         |"This information is top security.
<http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>|     When you have read it, destroy yourself."
  <http://www.theinfo.org/>  |             - Marshall McLuhan