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

[Ian Graham <ian.graham@utoronto.ca>]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Aaron Swartz wrote:

> 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.

Well, in fact there is no way to do this yet without a good schema
language. The idea here would be to use a URL to reference human-readable
documentation -- the 'info' attribute on the <interfacd> element expresses
this need. This can be extended later when there are machine-readable
ways of describing how an interface (SOAP,XML-RPC or whatever) works.
 
--
Ian