 |
| Welcome
Sign Up Log On |
|
|
“RE: RSD Notes” |
|||
| From: | Daniel Berlinger | In Response To: | 2597 RSD Notes |
| Date Posted: | Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:49:37 PM | Replies: | 1 |
| Enclosures: | None. | ||
I thought that the API most likely to work should be included and that was it. Stephan (of SnipSnap) thought all could be listed and one marked default (read "try first"). That's the way it looks now, although I'm thinking of changing it. I really want to keep the required elements very simple and straightforward and then let people create modules for whatever else they want.
>>After listing the supported API's, should it have sections for each supported API with the parameters that the client needs to send back?
>From the keep it simple side, I'd say no, let's define a module etc. for this. From the client dev side, I'd say I doubt I'd use this because there's more to hooking up to CMS than just the calls (as you know). It's more about UI decisions than calls for the most part. Looking this information up this way doesn't help me (but it might help others).
>>It seems that the RSD document could provide the client software with everything it needs to know, except for security info (username and password).
To which I'd add the site's URL.
The experience I'd like to build for Archipelago is where the user points it to the homepage of their site, and all the info except the two pieces you mention are filled in. At the moment the list isn't long and is encapsulated by the current format. (Whether its done right or wrong is kinda irrelevant, we'll get it straightened out before long.)
Is there something you think is sorely lacking? Because ultimately that's what we need to get to. The simplest format with the fewest bits of info that will serve the largest community.
Thanks,
d.
There are no trackbacks.
|
TruerWords
is Seth Dillingham's personal web site. From now on, ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put. - WC |
