Blogging Roller

There was quite a flurry of blogging about the Atom Publishing Protocol (APP) over the weekend, all kicked off by Dare Obasanjo's criticisms of the protocol. Some of the posts were critical of Dare and his motives, but I'm thankful he started the conversation. Here's the dump from my del.icio.us account:

• Dare Obasanjo: Why GData/APP Fails as a General Purpose Editing Protocol for the Web - Good only for microcontent, no support for partial updates, poor support for hierarchy and "we [Microsoft] will likely standardize on a different RESTful protocol"

• Bill de hÓra: APP on the Web has failed: miserably, utterly, and completely - APP editor Bill de hÓra responds to Dare's APP critique
  
  
• snellspace.com: Silly: James Snell responds to Dare's APP critique. Cites usage of APP in Lotus Connections.
  
  
• Joe Gregorio: In which we narrowly save Dare from inventing his own publishing protocol: APP editor Joe Gregorio's point-by-point response to Dare's APP criticisms
  
  
• David Megginson: REST, the lost update and the sneakernet test: - "Without exclusive locks, there’s no way to avoid this problem, but it is possible to detect it."
  
  
• Tim Bray: I’ve Seen This Movie: Tim Bray responds to Dare's post: "Microsoft has tried to swim against the current of the Internet a few times before"
  
  
• snellspace.com: Beyond APP - Partial updates: Dare's post inspires James to post a strawman proposal for using HTTP PATCH to implement partial updates w/Atom.
  
  
• Keith Fahlgren: Partial Updates, a simpler strawman: "The basic inspiration is thinking about each operation as an XSLT template"
  
  
• snellspace.com: Partial Updates in APP, Part 2: James responds to Keith's simpler strawman.
  
  
• Dare Obasanjo: GData isn't a Best Practice Implementation of the Atom Publishing Protocol: Dare responds to the flurry of APP posts he kicked off