Simon is not a member of the atom-syntax list. I imagine his response
will get through atom syntax moderation at some point, though as we
are in holiday season, I imagine this could take some time.
I have also changed the policy on [EMAIL PROTECTED] to allow
posts by non members, forcing them through a moderation stage. This
option was not available on google groups when I started the group.
So you non members can cc that group hapily now. :-)
Henry
On 22 Dec 2005, at 18:44, Simon Phipps wrote:
On Dec 22, 2005, at 15:34, James Holderness wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
Does Atom allow there to be multiple parallel renditions of a
blog entry in different languages?
So it is not really possible to put atom entries with the same id
and updated time stamp in a feed (without a SHOULD level
violation) even if they are translation of each other. That
means that the Swiss would not be able to publish a law with the
same atom id in french and in german, as they are obliged to
publish these at the exact same time by law. (No linguistic
preference)
The Swiss may need to publish laws in multiple languages
simultaneously, but most users surely don't need to read those
laws in multiple languages simultaneously. Why waste their
bandwidth including several translations in one feed when it would
be far more convenient if you just had a separate feed for each
language?
You're making a couple of dodgy assumptions here:
* You're assuming Atom is just used by an end-user here. Atom feeds
can also be used to pass data between servers, for backup, or for
content transfer. Structuring multilingual data as multiple feeds
without including cross-relationships with the data involves loss
of meta-data.
* You're assuming multiple languages are always present. When I
blog, I have some entries translated for me because they relate to
local issues in a country I am visiting. I won't be making a
permanent pt-br feed when I visit Brazil, but I may well want the
translated blog entry to be made available in the syndication feed.
It may well be appropriate to have multiple feeds in the case Henry
cites where there is a stable set of translations, but the more
general case merits serious consideration. James Snell has an
interesting proposal that addresses the issue directly with minimal
change.
S.
