On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:25 +0100, Henry Story wrote: > On 29 Nov 2005, at 00:31, Luke Arno wrote: > > On 11/28/05, Ernest Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Henry, > >> > >> On Nov 23, 2005, at 3:22 AM, Henry Story wrote: > >>> A few improvements of atom over directories is that our feed can > >>> contain not just the current version of an entry, but all previous > >>> versions as well, which I think I remember was a feature supported > >>> by the vms file system. > >> > >> Interesting. It reminds me of a thought I had a while ago: would it > >> be possible to emulate 80% of WebDAV by using HTTP + Atom?
> I think that is very much the idea. If you check what is going on on > the atom protocol group you will find that they are moving in that > direction > > http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/ Hmm. I worry about such a land grab. I'd rather put muscle behind WebDAV and be sure that Atom dovetails. I think that the similarities should be used to ensure such dovetailing, rather than to seed a competition between Atom and DAV. > >> Would we > >> also need some sort of list structure, a la XOXO? > >> > >> http://microformats.org/wiki/xoxo > >> > > > > Yup, but Atom Feed _is_ a list format. :-) > > Mhh. An Atom feed is a *Set* of entries. Not a list of entries. > The entries are not ordered in any particular way in a feed. That is > stated in the spec section 4.1.1 > > [[ > This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry > elements within the feed. > ]] > > In this sense it is again like the files in a directory. You can sort > them different ways using options to the ls command, or if you have a > graphical browser by clicking the different columns, but there is no > objectively better order than another. I was going to mention this. I will say that the available convention I know of for allowing ordering is the feed rank proposal http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-index-03.txt But I think it's a bit clumsy to stretch this approach beyond simple ranking. Maybe a more general purpose extension for collation algorithm overlay is in order? > In html one could perhaps represent them as un unordered list, which > is perhaps what the xoxo people intend. The XOXO people intend both. <ol> for ordered lists. <ul> for unordered lists, just as in Uncle XHTML. > > You should check out some of the recent introspection > > discussion that went on over on Atom Pub. Man. I just barely convinced myself to muster the non-existent spare time to follow this list (I've been lurking for a week now). So many lists, so little time. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://fourthought.com http://copia.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
