It would make sense to mix "syndication", "archive", "aggregation", etc. In other words, some profiles would make sense to mix together.
Entry-scoped profile makes a LOT of sense.
@profile attribute on the feed level applies only to the feed and is used to identify the collection(s) of metadata elements used in the feed.
@profile attribute on the entry level applies only to the entry and is used to identify the collection(s) of metadata elements used in the entry.
<feed profile="syndication aggregation"> ... <entry profile="blog"> ... </entry> </feed>
<feed profile="archive">
...
<entry profile="blog archive">
...
</entry>
</feed>Other than helping to identify the collection of metadata elements, another nice about this approach is that it allows the producer of the feed to explicitly indicate the purpose of the feed. Feeds that are intended for archiving use can be handled differently than feeds that are intended for syndication. Entries that use a blog profile can be handled differently than entries used, for instance, to express CAP Alert information, etc.
As for profiles that don't make sense to mix and match, leave the decision about whether to mix and match up to the producer of the feed/entry. If the UA detects that a feed/entry uses a combination of profiles that are contradictory, the UA can choose to either reject the item or choose to ignore one or both of the profiles and attempt to deal with the entry by falling back on the default core metadata elements. If a profile is indicated that the UA does not understand, the UA could safely ignore the profile and just work off the minimally required core metadata elements.
- James M Snell
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Hmm. I'm thinking of profiles as fairly coarse-grained things; so coarse-grained, it wouldn't make sense to mix-and-match them in a single document (or, if you do, you either don't use a profile, or you invent a new one).
I.e., does it make sense to mix a "stock quote" entry with a "systems monitoring" or "blog" entry? How would a UA present this?
On Feb 4, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Bill de h�ra wrote:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Bill,
I'm sorry, I don't think I get what you're saying; the words all make sense, but I don't know how you got here.
[../]
The Pace doesn't place any requirements on Atom Processors WRT @profile; it's just an advisory flag that tells it what kinds of metadata it can count on appearing in the feed.
Ok, I'll calm down and try again.
If the advisory @profile scopes at the level of the feed, I think that's too broad a scope. It needs to scope at the level of the entry, or it's liable to becomes meaningless when entries are mixed and matched. I can barely figure out how to class individual entries, never mind entire feeds. Maybe there's a use case I'm not getting.
-- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems
