Re: Latest on the comments extension

[James M Snell]

Thomas Broyer wrote:


James M Snell wrote:
 


/in-reply-to provides the atom:id (not dereferencable) of an
original atom:entry and may appear within atom:feed or
atom:entry. in-reply-to on the feed level indicates that all
of the entries within the feed are considered replies to the
identified atom:entry.


   


Is it legal if it appears at both levels? And what does it mean
then?



 


Yes. If the entry level link has the same URI as the feed level link,
there is no effect... it's basically just redundant data.  If the entry
level link specifies a different URI, then it's basically an assertion
that the entry is a response to two different entries.  If all of the
entries within a feed are replies to the same entry, putting the
in-reply-to at the feed level simply gives you a shortcut the same way
that putting atom:author elements at the feed level rather than entry
level does.

e.g.

1.


 
 
   
 


2.


 
 
   
 


3.


 
   
   
 

   



#2 is not how atom:author "inheritance" works (assuming there is some kind
of atom:author inheritance, which is not established). I'd prefer #2 to be
 


Yeah, you're right. bad analogy.


equivalent to this:

 
   
 


That is, the set of entry level links overrides the set of feed level links.
 


Gotta think about this a bit more.  This may be the better approach.


If I understand correctly, ".../root" tells you where to find the entry
identified with ".../in-reply-to". How are you dealing with multiple
in-reply-to?





If I misunderstood, what is ".../root" for?

 

.../root is simply a link back to feeds that may contain root level 
entries (e.g. the entries being responded to).  In the example, the two 
in-reply-to links could reference entries in either of the two linked 
root feeds.  It's up to the implementation to figure out exactly how to 
handle it.


Again, I'm still stewing over all this so if you have any specific 
suggestions on how to handle it better, please let me know.


- James

Re: Latest on the comments extension

[Thomas Broyer]

James M Snell wrote:
>
>>>/in-reply-to provides the atom:id (not dereferencable) of an
>>>original atom:entry and may appear within atom:feed or
>>>atom:entry. in-reply-to on the feed level indicates that all
>>>of the entries within the feed are considered replies to the
>>>identified atom:entry.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Is it legal if it appears at both levels? And what does it mean
>>then?
>>
>>
>>
> Yes. If the entry level link has the same URI as the feed level link,
> there is no effect... it's basically just redundant data.  If the entry
> level link specifies a different URI, then it's basically an assertion
> that the entry is a response to two different entries.  If all of the
> entries within a feed are replies to the same entry, putting the
> in-reply-to at the feed level simply gives you a shortcut the same way
> that putting atom:author elements at the feed level rather than entry
> level does.
>
> e.g.
>
> 1.
> 
> 
>   
>   
> 
>   
> 
>
> 2.
> 
> 
>   
>   
> 
>   
> 
>
> 3.
> 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>   
> 

#2 is not how atom:author "inheritance" works (assuming there is some kind
of atom:author inheritance, which is not established). I'd prefer #2 to be
equivalent to this:

  

  


That is, the set of entry level links overrides the set of feed level links.

If I understand correctly, ".../root" tells you where to find the entry
identified with ".../in-reply-to". How are you dealing with multiple
in-reply-to?





If I misunderstood, what is ".../root" for?

-- 
Thomas Broyer

Re: Latest on the comments extension

[A. Pagaltzis]

* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-22 01:25]:
>For instance, if I linked to anything but an Atom feed, what
>would in-reply-to link to?

Still atom:id values. Presumably, any resource linked to is
associated, by whatever means, to the Atom feed containing the
entry being replied to. I don’t know what behaviour would be most
sensible for cases where it’s not an Atom feed and I’m not
advocating trying to specify any. I just think it’s a good idea
to say that the specified expectation, ie that it’s the Atom feed
where the entry being replied to originated, applies only when
@type='application/atom+xml'. That way, if someone else figures
out a sensible thing to do for other cases in the future, they
can extend the same relation rather than needing to specify a new
one.

>If the entry level link specifies a different URI, then it's
>basically an assertion that the entry is a response to two
>different entries.

Ah, the feed-level link simply inherits. Good idea, I like that.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // 

Re: Latest on the comments extension

[James M Snell]

A. Pagaltzis wrote:


* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-21 23:15]:
 


Feedback requested.
   



I like it so far; comments follow (no pun intended).

 


;-)


/root provides the URL (dereferencable) to the Atom feed that
contains the original entries and may appear within atom:feed
and/or atom:entry
   



Why is this restricted to being an Atom feed? Shouldn’t @type
govern the precise meaning? Should linking to other kinds of
resources, such as a weblog with the appropriate autodiscovery
tags in its HTML or to a FOAF file, be outlawed? If not, are
there any SHOULD/MUST requirements for linked resources?

 

The restriction is to make the link predictable and keep the spec 
simple.  For instance, if I linked to anything but an Atom feed, what 
would in-reply-to link to?



/in-reply-to provides the atom:id (not dereferencable) of an
original atom:entry and may appear within atom:feed or
atom:entry. in-reply-to on the feed level indicates that all
of the entries within the feed are considered replies to the
identified atom:entry.
   



Is it legal if it appears at both levels? And what does it mean
then?

 

Yes. If the entry level link has the same URI as the feed level link, 
there is no effect... it's basically just redundant data.  If the entry 
level link specifies a different URI, then it's basically an assertion 
that the entry is a response to two different entries.  If all of the 
entries within a feed are replies to the same entry, putting the 
in-reply-to at the feed level simply gives you a shortcut the same way 
that putting atom:author elements at the feed level rather than entry 
level does.


e.g.

1.


 
 
   
 


2.


 
 
   
 


3.


 
   
   
 


- James

Re: Latest on the comments extension

[A. Pagaltzis]

* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-21 23:15]:
> Feedback requested.

I like it so far; comments follow (no pun intended).

> /root provides the URL (dereferencable) to the Atom feed that
> contains the original entries and may appear within atom:feed
> and/or atom:entry

Why is this restricted to being an Atom feed? Shouldn’t @type
govern the precise meaning? Should linking to other kinds of
resources, such as a weblog with the appropriate autodiscovery
tags in its HTML or to a FOAF file, be outlawed? If not, are
there any SHOULD/MUST requirements for linked resources?

> /in-reply-to provides the atom:id (not dereferencable) of an
> original atom:entry and may appear within atom:feed or
> atom:entry. in-reply-to on the feed level indicates that all
> of the entries within the feed are considered replies to the
> identified atom:entry.

Is it legal if it appears at both levels? And what does it mean
then?

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis //