At 7:56 AM -0400 5/12/05, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
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.
I don't see how. The current document certainly shows how to create entries with enclosed content (the entry can contain an atom:content element), and it certainly shows how to create entries with no enclosed content (the entry can contain no atom:content elements).
> P.S. -- Here are a couple of messages underscoring that atom:summaryand 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
Those two personal opinions, neither of which appears in the current draft, do not relate to the charter-level description of "enclosed content". In the case of the charter, "enclosed content" means an atom:content element, no other parts of the entry. If we took this too the extreme Rob wants, we would have to allow completely null entries because titles, dates, and even IDs could be considered content.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
