Karl, On Tuesday, September 12, 2006, at 02:37AM, Karl Dubost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Le 12 sept. 06 à 08:39, Jan Algermissen a écrit : >> Umm...am I missing something? Is it that bad? >> >> What I am basically aiming at is a common means to relate entries >> to each other to indicate one is a version of the other or to link >> from an entry to a feed that consists of versions of that entry, >> >> If I am not completely wrong, versioning is definitely an issue if >> you want to employ Atom in beyond-blogging contexts. Most people >> that deal with collections of items are definitely interested in >> keeping track of the former versions of the items. > >Are you talking about threading? I did consider re-using threading, but thought the semantics are really to different. OTH, I did not take an in depth look, so maybe there is an entry-to-entry relationship that can be re-used. > >Why not putting it outside of Atom and use the power of links for >threading. I really did not have a modification to atom in mind (maybe I used the name 'extension' improperly). I was only looking for a relatively standardized way to link items to derived items or vice versa. BTW: Can the cotent of an atom enry contain or link to an atom feed document? Thanks. Jan >Similar discussion but for comments happened on microformats ML. > > >So IMHO, it is slightly off-topic, in the sense you could achieve it >by an application built on top of Atom without touching Atom >AND Tim Bray could come back in the room :p > > > From the microformats ML > >Le 12 sept. 06 à 08:35, Karl Dubost a écrit : >> Hi Steph, >> >> Le 12 sept. 06 à 07:17, Stephanie Booth (bunny) a écrit : >>> A while back somebody showed me a blog marked up with hatom. That >>> person used hatom on the comments too (on the single post page) -- >>> that meant two hfeeds: one containing only the post, and another one >>> with the comments. >>> >>> Does this way of using hatom on comments make sense to you? I noticed >>> that neither K2 nor Sandbox wordpress themes do this. >> >> Completely logical. >> >> Each individual comment is nothing more than a weblog post. >> The only technical difference is that it is not made on another >> weblog, but directly on the weblog of the person. >> >> Each individual comment is structured like a weblog post. >> It has (required) >> - an id, the URI of the comment >> - a title, often the same than the original weblog post, sometimes >> a different (see SPIP) >> - a date when it has been done (updated) >> It has (recommended) >> - often an author >> - content (core text of the comment) >> - link (the URI of the Weblog original post we are commenting on) >> >> It just miss a summary, but that is not mandatory in Atom either. >> >> IMHO, it should be an individual hatom entry for each comment, The >> way everything is aggregated and organized has a full feed is >> another debate. The date and link should help to create a pseudo >> thread. >> It could be a full thread like in SPIP when the commenter has the >> possibility to reply to a specific comment in this case the link >> becomes the URI of the specific comment. >> > > > > > >-- >Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ >W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead > QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/ > *** Be Strict To Be Cool *** > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ Jan Algermissen http://jalgermissen.com Software Architect http://www.tugboat.de
