I hope this isn't too late.  Perhaps not, the spec isn't listed as 1.0 yet.  In any case, I feel really bad about not reviewing RSD before, expecially given that the RFC links to not one but three of my essays.  I have three comments, which I will give in decreasing order of importance:

1) In the examples, there is an "rsd" namespace which is defined but never used.  In order to use it, one would have to prefix each element with "rsd:".  A simpler fix is to simply define this as the default namespace for the document, by dropping the ":rsd" entirely from the declaration.  As it stands, I would say that the examples don't comply with the spec.

2) rpcLink presumes, well, RPC.  With protocols like the RESTLog Interface, there is not a single URL, but rather a set of them.  Yes, there is a base URL and one could munge it into this slot, but it really doesn't fit, and furthermore calling the slot RPC unnecessary provokes the more radical RESTians out there.

3) I would prefer to see a simple URL instead of a centrally managed list of "well known names".  That's not to say that there can't be a list of known URLs.  This is for two reasons: (1) to decentralize the maintenance, and (2) to provide more value by providing a direct link to the documentation of the protocol supported.

  4:40:49 PM   Comment 

Ben Hammersley: Perhaps taxonomies should be entirely emergent...What if we just forget about taxonomies altogether and go with trackbacks.  How about Second Order Trackbacks?  Sounds to me like TrackBack Threading.

Personally, I've not yet quite convinced about the value of predetermined taxonomies.  I'd rather see a site which supported ad hoc queries than one which is extensively categorized (similarly, I prefer Google over Yahoo).

Update: Ben continues this discussion here, but I have no record of a trackback.  Bug?  Snub? 

  12:32:05 PM   Comment 

Joe Gregorio: There is a lot of discussion on the proposed Blogger API Version 2.0 and Ben brings up some very good points. This gives me a chance to trumpet REST in general and RESTLog specifically in how they solve these problems.

Seed planting time.

What if RESTLogImpl.py allowed for the posibility that <item> elements it receives using an HTTP PUT may be enclosed in Envelope and Body elements, as described here.  All I am asking is that these be ignored... the one exception is if some XML element contains a mustUnderstand attribute with a value of "1", then you return an appropriate SOAPFault.

I'm not suggesting that such an envelope be required, or that any other changes be made to the API.  Merely that it be tolerated if it were present.

I can donate the Python server code for generating a SOAPFault message.

  1:04:28 AM   Comment