Robert Sayre wrote:
http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F
:)
Oh, is it upgraded to be a 1.0 validator? front page talks about 0.3
still...
I've just downloaded Jing, been checking things that way using:
java -jar jing-20030619/bin/jing.jar -c atom.rnc a2.xml
Talking of which...
I was just now hesitating as to whether to post this, but here goes. I think
there seems to be a non-empty class of XML documents which parse as
both RDF/XML and as Atom 1.0. This class may be (a) ugly (b) quirky
(c) a frustratingly small subset of Atom 1.0, but it ... seems to exist.
I've just check in this evening's experiments; thanks to Norm for some
Relax-NG handholding btw.
According to Jing and atom.rnc,
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/a1.xml
...seems to be acceptable as Atom. I took the tiny example from the spec,
added some RDF'y bits, and fed it to some validators.
According to the RDF Validator, it's also RDF/XML (we omit the top level
rdf:RDF, so RDF tools would need some other way, eg. media type, to get
a clue that it could be parsed into triples).
More notes at
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/notes.html
Let me emphasise that I'm not claiming these Atom docs "are" reasonably
interpreted as RDF. Just that they seem to, by happy coincidence as it
were, at least
share a syntax with RDF. The intepretation of this syntactic state of
affairs is
up for discussion.
cheers,
Dan
ps. congrats everyone on getting Atom 1.0 out the door!
