Re: [xri] <Type>

[Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@xdi.org>]

Isn't that two different things? 1. Saying what kind of XRD you have (with <Type>), and 2. Describing the resource (with extension elements)?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought the purpose of <Type> was only to give applications a way to quickly decide if they understand this XRD; not to provide any data about the resource itself (e.g. popup size)?

Markus

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav <eran@hueniverse.com> wrote:

I have been thinking about James' feedback regarding the need for key/value pairs to describe resources, and I have been convinced that it makes more sense than the current Boolean approach taken with <Type>.

Right now, we can describe a resource using only a list of "tags". While protocols can customize these to include configuration:

<Type>http://example.com/version/1.1</Type>
<Type>http://example.com/version/2.0</Type>

Or

<Type>http://example.com/popup/size/300,400</Type>

This approach has been rejected by most members a few months back as a bad extensibility model.

To make XRD useful we should either drop <Type> and leave it up to individual extensions to define a container that is useful for them to describe the resource, or replace <Type> with a key/value element such as:

<Property key="http://example.com/version">1.1</Property>

Ignore the element syntax, use of value or attributes or child elements. The key will be a URI (just like <Type>) and the value a string. A key without value is the same as a <Type> declaration.

Thoughts?

EHL


---------------------------------------------------------------------
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