Re: [xri] Restructuring Section 2

["Nika Jones" <njones@ouno.com>]

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
>
>