Re: PaceContentNegotiationSection

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 15:15:00 +0200, Eric J. Bowman <eric-MkmoNbc1SAncr/OS1auqaA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  
wrote:

> Again, this is not my problem, it was not my idea to state that there  
> could be this "service document" without giving me any hint at all as
> to where it should go, but did provide a MIME type.

Why do you need a hint of where to put it? It's like wanting the PNG  
specification to enumerate locations of where it's nice to have images on  
a website. Why would a specification of a protocol or a format do that?

> So I assumed that was so that I could negotiate for it at some other
> address-in-use.

I think that is a bad assumption and is why we are having this discussion.  
Change the assumption and your implementation, put the service document on  
another URI, and the problems you are experiencing and having a hard time  
discussing with us should evaporate in thin air.

> I complained that the spec was suggesting two distinct resources with
> the same URI by not describing a standard address to find the service
> document.

Why do you need "a standard address" to put the service document on?

> You know, like robots.txt is well defined.

robots.txt could, as well as all other web resources, also be linked to  
from another known location (<link rel="robots" href="robots.txt" /> for  
example).

> If you don't want me to put my service description on my website's root,
> you need to tell me where else anybody in their right mind would look
> for it, i.e. index.atomsrv.

No, we need not. We need to supply a method for finding it, not a special  
location to retreive it from.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»