Paul, Tim: It would be helpful if you could address the "The current draft fails to satisfy the second bullet point" allegation.
-Scott- > -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Sayre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:00 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Robert Sayre; Sam Hartman; Atom-Syntax > Subject: Re: Last Call: required summary or content? > > > > There's one more issue that I would like to make the IESG aware of > before it evaluates the Atom Syndication Format. I don't believe the > format satisfies the Atompub charter: > > The format must be able to represent: > * a resource that is a Weblog entry or article (e.g., it has > an author, date, identifier, and content) > * a feed or channel of entries, with or without enclosed > content > * a complete archive of all entries in a feed > * existing well-formed XML (especially XHTML) content > * additional information in an user-extensible manner > > > The current draft fails to satisfy the second bullet point. > > Robert Sayre > > P.S. -- Here are a couple of messages underscoring that atom:summary > and atom:content both serve as "enclosed content". > > Tim Bray: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg14155.html > Sam Ruby: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg14057.html > > > > On 4/25/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Robert Sayre wrote: > > > > > >> * What the specification does currently > > > > > > In an Atom Entry, the specification currently requires a > minimum set of > > > elements: <title>, <id>, and <updated>. Typically, there > will also be a > > > <link> element. The specification includes a provision > that allows its > > > omission on the condition that there is a <content> > element. In addition > > > to that, the specification requires that either <summary> > or <content> > > > be present. > > > > > >> * What you would like it to do instead > > > > > > I want to allow the metadata-only feeds allowed by all > flavors of RSS, > > > and the omission of the <content> and <summary>. Such > feeds are commonly > > > termed "title-only feeds", because that is all that is > visible to the > > > user (the title is usually hyperlinked w/ the link element). > > > > I will again point out that the current format allows for > empty summary > > and/or content elements. > > > > I have seen errors that the requirement for the inclusion of such > > elements would have prevented. > > > > I have seen no arguments as to why placing such empty elements would > > impose an unreasonable burden on implementers. > > > > - Sam Ruby > > > > > >
