Just for clarity, what I am asserting is the usefulness of atom:category to express attributes of a feed or entry that are particularly useful for machine processing and may or may not be useful for human consumption (e.g. visibility: public/private). And that atom:categ...@label may be useful in distinguishing those which are meant primarily for human consumption.
That, if I understand, is a very bad idea in your opnion (it may be universally regarded as a bad idea and I am missing something). Since per the spec it is perfectly reasonable/valid, evidence or explanation would be welcome. --peter On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Peter Keane <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:13 PM, James Holderness <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Peter Keane wrote: >>> >>> Does the Blogger format (which I was championing) cripple their >>> functionality? Just curious.... >> >> Short answer: yes. >> >> John Panzer wrote: >>> >>> So people can see what we're talking about easily, I exported a >>> (test) blog and uploaded the xml here: >>> >>> http://www.johnpanzer.com/blogexport.xml >> >> I hadn't looked at the Blogger format until you posted that link. Once I saw >> it, though, I realised it was so laughingly bad, I just had to steal the >> idea for my April Fools' Day blog post (although maybe it wasn't that funny >> if you thought the format had any merit at all). >> >> Having done that, I kind of forgot abut this thread, but I think it's >> probably best if I stay out of this discussion anyway. My interest in the >> archive format is somewhat tangential to the problem you're trying to solve. >> >> However, I'd be grateful if everyone could try and avoid recommending their >> worst ideas as "best practices". That just makes my life more difficult. > > I'd be a lot more useful if you could explain your objections. > Meanwhile, I'll modify my statement to say "common" practice (instead > of "best" practice -- even though I quite like it -- it's indisputably > "common"). I'm all ears & willing to change my tune if there is > compelling evidence... > > --peter > > >> >> Regards >> James >> >> >
