On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 6:20 AM, Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > On 8/12/08 3:17 PM, "Peter Keane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am getting an error from the feedvalidator for text in the > atom:category > > element: > > <category term='breed'>siberian husky</category> > > > > But the spec says it "assigns no meaning to the content" and the > > RNC seems to allow it. > > Hmm ... I suspect what you actually want to do is instead something like > this: > > <category scheme='breed' term="siberian husky" /> > > (where 'breed' would actually be an IRI, not a keyword). > > I wouldn't try this though: > > <category term='breed' label="siberian husky" /> > > ... because that is syntactically the same category as: > > <category term='breed' term="any other breed" /> > > > Finally, if your category scheme has unfriendly codes for terms then you > would do this: > > <category > scheme='http://www.loc.gov/catdir/cpso/lcco/' > term="SF429.S65" > label="siberian husky" /> This would be great in an ideal world, but the key-value pairs are all arbitrary (created by users, serialized to atom for syndication & atompub manipulation -- like in a spreadsheet -- column name/cell value). I actually use category in various other ways -- e.g. < category scheme=" http://example.com/cat/background"; term="white"/> to state what the background color should be when the image represented by this entry is used in a slideshow (utterly useless except in my own app). Since I now use a simple extension element for these key-value pairs, I was thinking about using category instead -- the Balisage paper I cited in my original message piqued my interest there. (Oh, BTW my example left out the scheme, which would be something like "http://example.com/metadata";). <!-- note: term may not be entirely accurate, IANAL --> > <!-- (where L = Librarian, of course ;-) --> > This would certainly not work for me since I am, in fact, a librarian ;-)! > > > > Bottom line is don't go putting what you think is the label for the > category > as text content of the element because (a) we have an attribute > specifically > for that purpose, and (b) it gets messy if someone else wants to put an > extension element in as content ... > > <category ...> > <x:see-also ref="foo" /> > </category> That's a very good point, and there has been some discussion here or on atom-protocol about using atom:link under atom:category. Although, interestingly the RNC says text is OK and atom constructs are a no-no there. thanks- Peter > > e. > >
