OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xri message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Restructuring Section 2



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


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]