Next in thread →
Next in month →
Re: [xri] Restructuring Section 2
Will, I agree with Nika. +1 to restructuring it this way, as it's very clean. =Drummond On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Nika Jones <> wrote: Will: I think the restructuring looks clean. Nika > I've seen people comment on the other threads, but nothing here. Does > that mean no objection, or still deliberating? > > -will > > > On Jan 12, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Will Norris wrote: > >> >> On Jan 7, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Drummond Reed wrote: >> >>>>> 2.1 XRD Elements, reads in part: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>> And, "...list its properties." OK, I'll bite, the properties of the >>>>> resource or the XRD document? >>>> >>>> >>>> He has a point, but the funny part is that the answer to his question >>>> is >>>> "both". <Expires> is a property of the document, whereas <Property> >>>> is a >>>> property of the resource. Not sure if that is worth making any >>>> changes. >>> >>> DECISION: Clarify that properties may be for "either/or" the document >>> or the >>> resource. >> >> >> So first of all, I was wrong in my statement that the "its" in this >> sentence refers to both the resource described by the XRD as well as the >> XRD document itself. It is referring only to the resource, because the >> next sentence talks about document property elements: >> >>> They also provide administrative information as to how the document >>> should be cached, as well as information necessary for the >>> authentication and trust verification of the XRD document. >> >> >> However, part of Patrick's response which I omitted stated: >> >>> Better? Just lose this paragraph as intro text (not necessary for >>> element definitions) and the content should appear in an introduction >>> to the standard as a whole. >> >> >> He's write, we don't actually need the intro text we have for Section >> 2.1, or the text we have for Section 2.2 for that matter. Come to think >> of it, I'm not sure that it even makes sense to separate the elements in >> this manner at all. >> >> This separation made sense when Rel, MediaType, etc were all >> sub-elements of <Link>. In CD01, the spec defined 12 elements, half of >> which all had to do with related resources. Therefore it made sense to >> group those six elements under a heading named "Linked Resource >> Elements". But now that almost all of those are attributes of the >> <Link> element, it's already encapsulated. We don't really need to >> group the elements into "XRD Elements" versus "Linked Resource >> Elements". >> >> >> I propose removing this separation, and defining all elements as second >> level sections: >> >> 2 - XRD Document Structure >> 2.1 - Element <XRD> >> 2.2 - Element <Expires> >> 2.3 - Element <Subject> >> 2.4 - Element <Alias> >> 2.5 - Element <Property> >> 2.6 - Element <Link> >> 2.7 - Element <Title> >> >> The introductory paragraph for Section 2 will be reworked, pulling >> relevant content from the old 2.1 and 2.2 intro paragraphs as >> appropriate. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> -will >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: >> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: > https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
Next in thread →
Next in month →