Martin Atkins wrote:
It was suggested that a more Atom-shaped media specification might be
useful, so we drafted up this:
http://martin.atkins.me.uk/specs/atommedia
At first glance that all seems fairly reasonable to me. The only thing that
concerned me was the media:description element. Is there any reason why the
atom:summary element wouldn't work just as well?
I'm trying to imagine how I would construct a feed if I were a photo service
like say flickr. The title is obvious, the content I'd probably put an html
img thumbnail along with a more detailed description if the author had
provided one, and the summary would just be the aforementioned description.
I can't see what I'd do with the media:description element other than
duplicate the atom:summary.
Is there a specific use-case that I'm missing?
We also have a small specification for describing the "service provider"
that hosts a feed (for example, YouTube or Twitter). This is intended to
be similar in design to atom:author.
http://martin.atkins.me.uk/specs/activitystreams/provider
It's worth pointing out that some feed parsers might be confused by the use
of existing atom:elements. For example they'll interpret your
service:provider title as the title of the feed. I know Planet Venus used to
have problems with that sort of thing, although it's possible it has since
been fixed.
Also, it could be argued that you're redefining the meaning of the atom
elements. In RFC4287, atom:title is defined as "a human-readable title for
an entry or feed". That's not how you're using it at all. I'm not sure if
that sort of thing matters.
Regards
James
