From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jon Seymour Subject: Re: First web interface and service API draft Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 23:47:10 +1000 Message-ID: <2cfc4032050422064728470606@mail.gmail.com> References: <1114166517.3233.4.camel@localhost> <4268F027.6030304@eldiablo.co.uk> <1114177468.3233.55.camel@localhost> Reply-To: jon@zeta.org.au Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Apr 22 15:43:38 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DOyQc-0008ET-Kd for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:42:43 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261789AbVDVNrO (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:47:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261863AbVDVNrO (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:47:14 -0400 Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.192]:13958 "EHLO rproxy.gmail.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261733AbVDVNrL convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:47:11 -0400 Received: by rproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i8so648453rne for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:47:11 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=X8evQRB0NVYYyTJnLawJO/aLPTGJ8o2T1RLqNTnbAo+QKBmXWWUPag8XiSGMy/ntzQ0+h7jqAV5RnxKBsR8xFps4Kkc1T8NdFxLMjPkK7iGMkJDbt2o5HXVa6QnEPFwsgf9z/P/5SXrmMPNG7xQM15swu8H5qmzwttai822/i9E= Received: by 10.38.11.1 with SMTP id 1mr3440218rnk; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:47:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.104.32 with HTTP; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 06:47:10 -0700 (PDT) To: El Draper , git@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <1114177468.3233.55.camel@localhost> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > > > > >From the point of view of a specification, though, I think it would be > > useful to focus on an XML content model rather than the details of one > > particular HTML model - get the XML model right and you can do > > whatever you like with the HTML model at any time after that. > > Actually I think the order is get the C content model right (done), get > the Python object model right (in flux), produce an appropriate XML > model. Mmm.. I am not sure that a Python model is logically a pre-requisite to the XML model nor that the ideal C API model is complete - we still don't have a libgit, for example. For an XML model we can get by pretty well with the data model as it is - and an XML model really shouldn't be dependent on any particular API or programming language. Certainly, though, an XML model isn't a pre-requisite to a Python model. Though it might be a pre-req to a SOAP model :-). jon.