On Thursday, December 07, 2006, at 10:18AM, "Daniel E. Renfer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have two programs on my system; A feed reader, which I use to >subscribe to Atom Feeds, but has a very limited support for Entry >documents; and an APP Editor, which allows me to create and edit Atom >Entries, but has limited support for Feeds. > >If I click on one of these two links on the page, I want that resource >to be handled by it's respective program. If these two documents were >each to be served with a different mediatype, then it is trivial to >tell my OS/Browser to send the Feeds to my feed reader, but send my >Entries to my editor. Ok, that is IMO heading in the right direction. This example makes sense because it strongly emphasizes a difference between feeds and entries, saying feeds are for viewing collections and entries are more or less for editing web resources (if we include the media resource case). If the Atom specs never considered feed readers to be dealing with individual entries anyhow (at least that is the impression I get by now) then having a new media type does indeed make sense. Question to Atom editors and others involved with the specs: What was the intention behind having entry documents in Atom in the first place? Thanks, Jan > >As it stands right now, there would be no way to do this aside from >having a third program taking in both, sniffing the content and >sending the document to the appropriate program. This is a horrible >solution. > >The @rel attribute is still useful. The @rel exists to tell the >browser what to do with the document, the @type exists to say what >that document actually IS. > >I dislike the idea of using ;type=[feed|entry] mostly because I'm >afraid that this information will far too likely be either diregarded >or dropped. Also, once Entries become their own type, the next logical >step would be to have something like: > >application/atom.entry+xml;type=xhtml >application/atom.entry+xml;type=html >application/atom.entry+xml;type=text >application/atom.entry+xml;type=markdown >etc... > >Of course, let's reach a consensus on this issue before that >particular can of worms gets opened up. > > >Daniel E. Renfer >http://kronkltd.net/ > >On 12/7/06, Jan Algermissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On Dec 7, 2006, at 8:41 AM, Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote: >> >> > Considering you seem to only discuss their value from a feed reader >> > point of view >> >> >> Hmm, strange. Feed readers are actually the last thing I am thinking >> about wrt Atom (no intention to show disrespect for the blogosphere >> of course). >> >> Jan >> >> > > >
