Re: Updated Comments Draft (getting closer)

[A. Pagaltzis]

* Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-12 23:55]:
> As I read it, your proposal is about enabling threading in Atom
> to allow aggregators to present entries in a tree form.
> 
> If you want to comment on a non-Atom resource, create a new
> link/@rel value or use a [EMAIL PROTECTED]"related"] or
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]"via"] or something like that.
> 
> So a strong +1 to making the id REQUIRED.

You have a point. Hmm.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // 

Re: Updated Comments Draft (getting closer)

[Thomas Broyer]

James M Snell wrote:


The simple answer is that not everything I may want to reply too will 
have an ID I can reference.  Suppose that what I'm responding to is an 
item in an RSS feed that does not contain a guid element?  All I have 
to go off of is the URL of the RSS feed or the RSS item's link 
element... neither of which are actual ID's.

From your draft's abstract:

  This memo presents a mechanism that allows feeds publishers to
  express threading relationships between entries and feeds.

And from your draft's introduction section:
  This document specifies a mechanism that allows the expression of
  threaded discussions within the Atom Syndication Format ([I-D.ietf-
  atompub-format]).

As I read it, your proposal is about enabling threading in Atom to allow 
aggregators to present entries in a tree form.


If you want to comment on a non-Atom resource, create a new link/@rel 
value or use a [EMAIL PROTECTED]"related"] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]"via"] or something 
like that.


So a strong +1 to making the id REQUIRED.

--
Thomas Broyer

Re: Finishing up on whitespace in IRIs and dates

[Paul Hoffman]

Seems like we have consensus. Rob: please make this change and turn 
in the -11. Thanks!


--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

Re: Spec explanations for Pebble?

[Walter Underwood]

--On August 12, 2005 6:52:28 AM -0700 Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Except for, a bunch of blogs might agree to share a categorization
> scheme, so probably not "unique to each blog".

For example, as libraries start delivering literature monitoring with
feeds, we'll see LCSH or some other standard category system in those.

wunder
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Software Architect, Verity

Re: Finishing up on whitespace in IRIs and dates

[Robert Sayre]

On 8/12/05, Martin Duerst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> +1, including the 'MUST NOT' suggestion.

+1.

Robert Sayre

Re: Finishing up on whitespace in IRIs and dates

[Martin Duerst]

+1, including the 'MUST NOT' suggestion.

(Note that the XML Schema anyURI datatype, which may be used in
the RelaxNG schema for IRIs, allows spaces, because it was based
on an early draft of the IRI spec. If precision is desired, spaces
(and the other US-ASCII characters that the XML Schema anyURI
datatype allows) can easily be excluded using a pattern facet.)

Regards,Martin.

At 13:04 05/08/12, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
>Greetings again. I think we have rough consensus on "emitting with 
whitespace around IRIs and dates is an error" and "we should warn folks 
that people might emit errors here because this is somewhat subtle".

>
>If that is true, I propose that, just before section 3.1 (at the end of 
the introductory text to "Common Atom Constructs") we add:

>
>Note that there MUST be no whitespace in a Date construct or in any IRI. 
Some XML-emitting implementations erroneously insert whitespace around 
values by default, and such implementations will emit invalid Atom.

>
>--Paul Hoffman, Director
>--Internet Mail Consortium
> 

Re: Spec explanations for Pebble?

[Graham]

On 12 Aug 2005, at 2:52 pm, Tim Bray wrote:


On Aug 12, 2005, at 1:55 AM, Graham Parks wrote:

"categorization scheme" means the system used to categorize  
entries. Presumably each blog has its own system for doing so, so  
the scheme attribute should be the same for all posts from the  
same blog, and unique to the blog.


Except for, a bunch of blogs might agree to share a categorization  
scheme, so probably not "unique to each blog".


Fair point.

btw, Doesn't scheme and term require atom:id style discussion of  
equivalence to be useful?


Graham

Re: Spec explanations for Pebble?

[Tim Bray]

On Aug 12, 2005, at 1:55 AM, Graham Parks wrote:

"categorization scheme" means the system used to categorize  
entries. Presumably each blog has its own system for doing so, so  
the scheme attribute should be the same for all posts from the same  
blog, and unique to the blog.


Mostly agree.

Except for, a bunch of blogs might agree to share a categorization  
scheme, so probably not "unique to each blog".


But I suspect that the notion of "categorization scheme" is  
underdefined enough that if someone wanted to use different URIs for  
each page like the example Carey cited, that's really dumb but not  
actually illegal. -Tim

Re: Finishing up on whitespace in IRIs and dates

[Joe Gregorio]

On 8/12/05, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> --On August 11, 2005 9:04:21 PM -0700 Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Note that there MUST be no whitespace in a Date construct or in any IRI. 
> > Some XML-emitting implementations erroneously insert whitespace around 
> > values by default, and such implementations will emit invalid Atom.
> 
> Nice clear wording.
> 
> +1 with "MUST be no" changed to "MUST NOT be", as suggested by Aristotle.

+1 with the MUST NOT change incorporated.

   -joe

-- 
Joe Gregoriohttp://bitworking.org

Re: Finishing up on whitespace in IRIs and dates

[Bill de hÓra]

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 
> Greetings again. I think we have rough consensus on "emitting with
> whitespace around IRIs and dates is an error" and "we should warn folks
> that people might emit errors here because this is somewhat subtle".
> 
> If that is true, I propose that, just before section 3.1 (at the end of
> the introductory text to "Common Atom Constructs") we add:
> 
> Note that there MUST be no whitespace in a Date construct or in any IRI.
> Some XML-emitting implementations erroneously insert whitespace around
> values by default, and such implementations will emit invalid Atom.

+1

cheers
Bill

Re: Spec explanations for Pebble?

[Graham Parks]

On 12 Aug 2005, at 9:16 am, Carey Evans wrote:


First, where does the spec actually say that the atom:id shouldn't
change if the blog moves to a different domain?  I think that if the
URL of the blog changes, it means that the Atom Feed Document has been
relocated so the ID should stay the same, but Simon doesn't see this
in the spec.


Section 4.2.6, paragraph 3:

  "an atom:id element pertains to all instantiations of a particular
   Atom entry or feed; revisions retain the same content in their
   atom:id elements. It is suggested that the atom:id element be
   stored along with the associated resource."

If an Atom document is a feed of the same blog, then even if the blog  
has moved, the id should stay the same. What makes you think otherwise?



Second, what sort of values should be used for the scheme attribute on
the category?  Looking at http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/ongoing.atom as
an authoritative example, it seems that the scheme should be the same
for all categories, but Pebble uses the URL of the individual category
page.  The spec doesn't say, so does it matter?


Section 4.2.2.2:

   "The "scheme" attribute is an IRI that identifies a  
categorization scheme."


"categorization scheme" means the system used to categorize entries.  
Presumably each blog has its own system for doing so, so the scheme  
attribute should be the same for all posts from the same blog, and  
unique to the blog.


Graham

Spec explanations for Pebble?

[Carey Evans]

Simon Brown has upgraded the Atom feed generated by his Pebble weblog
software (http://pebble.sf.net/) to draft-10.  I've reported a few
problems with it, based on my understanding of the spec, but there are
a couple of points that don't seem to be directly addressed.  See:

  http://www.simongbrown.com/jira/secure/ViewIssue.jspa?key=PEB-266

First, where does the spec actually say that the atom:id shouldn't
change if the blog moves to a different domain?  I think that if the
URL of the blog changes, it means that the Atom Feed Document has been
relocated so the ID should stay the same, but Simon doesn't see this
in the spec.

Second, what sort of values should be used for the scheme attribute on
the category?  Looking at http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/ongoing.atom as
an authoritative example, it seems that the scheme should be the same
for all categories, but Pebble uses the URL of the individual category
page.  The spec doesn't say, so does it matter?

Can the list offer some advice?  Thanks.

(Reposted because the original didn't get through; my apologies for
any duplicates. Look out for the Gmail Reply-To.)

-- 
http://carey.geek.nz/