Signifying a Complete Feed
Does anyone know of an extension or mechanism that can indicate whether a given feed is a complete representation of the content it encompasses, or is just a summary? Here is the use case: Both LiveJournal and TypePad give users the option of not publishing the complete content of their posts inside their feed. In stead, we publish a summary of the post in the summary element. Thats logical enough. We see there being value however in being able to communicate to the reader that the contents represented by an entry element is not a complete representation of that entry. Is there an existing mechanism for this anywhere? An extension perhaps? Byrne Reese Manager, Platform Technology http://www.sixapart.com/pronet/
Re: Signifying a Complete Feed
* Byrne Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-13 19:40]: In stead, we publish a summary of the post in the summary element. That's logical enough. We see there being value however in being able to communicate to the reader that the contents represented by an entry element is not a complete representation of that entry. Without atom:content, an atom:entry is not a complete representation of a resource. Is there any problem I’m missing? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: Signifying a Complete Feed
* Byrne Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-13 20:55]: No I suppose not. But there are edge cases where people may not include content in a post. They may simply use the title... in maintaining a list of links for example. But I suppose there is a difference between: entry titlefoo/title /entry And entry titlefoo/title content/content /entry I think that is clear enough. That is exactly correct. If you want to ship a complete representation, you ship an atom:entry, and if the resource is empty, then that atom:content is empty. If the atom:entry has no atom:content, then that always means that it is a partial representation only. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
Re: Signifying a Complete Feed
Using Mark Nottingham's Feed History extension, you could do fh:incrementalfalse/fh:incremental Byrne Reese wrote: Does anyone know of an extension or mechanism that can indicate whether a given feed is a complete representation of the content it encompasses, or is just a summary? Here is the use case: * Both LiveJournal and TypePad give users the option of /not/ publishing the complete content of their posts inside their feed. In stead, we publish a summary of the post in the summary element. That’s logical enough. We see there being value however in being able to communicate to the reader that the contents represented by an entry element is not a complete representation of that entry. Is there an existing mechanism for this anywhere? An extension perhaps? Byrne Reese Manager, Platform Technology http://www.sixapart.com/pronet/
Re: Signifying a Complete Feed
On 13 Oct 2005, at 8:02 pm, A. Pagaltzis wrote: If you want to ship a complete representation, you ship an atom:entry, and if the resource is empty, then that atom:content is empty. If the atom:entry has no atom:content, then that always means that it is a partial representation only. Point to any text in the spec that backs this up. Graham
Re: Signifying a Complete Feed
On 10/13/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point to any text in the spec that backs this up. The spec says only The 'atom:content' element either contains or links to the content of the entry. Any assertion that there is no other content to be had is not testable, and therefore rightly excluded from the spec. I don't see what harm the proposed extension could do, but it doesn't sound like something I would implement. What's the benefit? Robert Sayre
RE: Signifying a Complete Feed
If only to make the nature of a feed, or state of a feed more deterministic and less ambiguous...? Nottingham's Feed History achieves this objective for me. I *knew* I had read something about this somewhere. :) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Sayre Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 1:51 PM To: Graham Cc: atom-syntax Subject: Re: Signifying a Complete Feed On 10/13/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Point to any text in the spec that backs this up. The spec says only The 'atom:content' element either contains or links to the content of the entry. Any assertion that there is no other content to be had is not testable, and therefore rightly excluded from the spec. I don't see what harm the proposed extension could do, but it doesn't sound like something I would implement. What's the benefit? Robert Sayre
Re: Signifying a Complete Feed
My understanding was that if fh:incremental was false the feed document should be considered a complete replacement for any previous document you may have received. This would be for things like top 10 lists. I believe the question being asked here is actually about the entries themselves not being complete. James M Snell wrote: Using Mark Nottingham's Feed History extension, you could do fh:incrementalfalse/fh:incremental Byrne Reese wrote: Does anyone know of an extension or mechanism that can indicate whether a given feed is a complete representation of the content it encompasses, or is just a summary?
Re: Signifying a Complete Feed
Ah, missed that, you're right. There is no way of indicating whether or not a feed is a full-content feed vs. a summary feed beyond the presence (or lack thereof) of the atom:content element. James Holderness wrote: My understanding was that if fh:incremental was false the feed document should be considered a complete replacement for any previous document you may have received. This would be for things like top 10 lists. I believe the question being asked here is actually about the entries themselves not being complete. James M Snell wrote: Using Mark Nottingham's Feed History extension, you could do fh:incrementalfalse/fh:incremental Byrne Reese wrote: Does anyone know of an extension or mechanism that can indicate whether a given feed is a complete representation of the content it encompasses, or is just a summary?
Re: Signifying a Complete Feed
Graham wrote: On 13 Oct 2005, at 8:02 pm, A. Pagaltzis wrote: If you want to ship a complete representation, you ship an atom:entry, and if the resource is empty, then that atom:content is empty. If the atom:entry has no atom:content, then that always means that it is a partial representation only. Point to any text in the spec that backs this up. 4.2.13 The atom:summary element is a Text construct that conveys a short summary, abstract, or excerpt of an entry. To me, that implies that there exists a resource somewhere that is a more complete representation of what is being provided in the summary. If there is no atom:content element then the entry can't possibly contain that full representation. Surely then that would make it partial representation? In reality though I've seen feeds with atom:content elements that wouldn't be considered complete by any stretch of the imagination. I've also seen entries with no atom:content where the full text is included in the atom:summary. For an Atom processor there are really no guarantees about anything regardless of what the spec may or may not say. Regards James
