Bill de hOra wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
It's definitely better than bastardizing the scheme element to provide
a dereferenceable URL. I would say that this definitely falls within
the realm of the validator's "questionable use" warning... at least
until there's spec text that describes the semantics.
Atom has no semantics, and that's a conscious decision of the WG, going
back as far as rejecting semweb technology. We also organise out markup
fairly differently to the RDF guys - they explicitly hang everything off
a URI; we don't and because of that this kind of issue will come up
every time some wamts to take an Atom construct and make a resource out
of it (root problem - we have links /and/ ids). The validator then, and
imvho, has no business nosing around denotational semantics beyond
saying "no notation with denotation!" when it sees an atom:id in a new
place.
I think what's needed here is a) a definition of atom:id wrt
atom:category, b) a uniform means of categorising entries.
a) is what I meant by "semantics"... poor word choice on my part.
With regard to b) The scheme attribute works very well as a means of
differentiating categorization methods. We may very well need to come
up with some standardized categorization schemes.
- James
Bill
