Re: [apps-discuss] [rest-discuss] Re: Feedback on draft-wilde-profile-link-00

[Erik Wilde <[e-mail]>]

hello julian.

On 2012-04-12 10:40 , Julian Reschke wrote:
>> the feed served by the atompub-enabled server would contain such a
>> 'profile' link on the feed level, indicating to a client that it can
>> POST to that feed's URI to create a new collection member.
> OK. I don't have a problem with that. The one thing to consider is, as
> others have pointed out, whether it would make sense to use "service"
> instead and let that point back to the same URI (assuming we have a
> proper definition of "service" :-)

so i guess the difference here is the following:

- 'profile' would just say that a feed is atompub-enabled, but it would 
not allow you to discover the specific service description for that 
feed. it would just be a link to discover and understand that i can POST 
to that URI.

- 'service' would link to the specific service description for that 
feed, and thus must be a working link and would allow clients to find 
out more about the service provided by the atompub server.

to be honest, i just looked at "naked atompub" and thought 'profile' 
might be a good thing and a good example for the 'profile' spec. if we 
assume "atompub + 'service'" is being used, then maybe 'profile' is of 
little additional value, and i should stop using it as an example.

which (and now i am happily cross-posting to [e-mail] as 
well) leads me to the question: should we have a 'service' spec or are 
we happy with 'service' just magically showing up in the registry? as 
somebody just reading and implementing atompub right now, there's no way 
for me to find out about 'service', so i think it should be properly 
spec'ed. if people agree (feedback from [e-mail] would be 
very welcome), i'd be happy to come up with a first draft.

cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:[e-mail]  -  tel:[phone] |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |