On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 13:58:55 +0100, Jan Algermissen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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).
Yay, the discussion is progressing! :)
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.
Yes indeed.
Question to Atom editors and others involved with the specs: What was
the intention behind having entry documents in Atom in the first place?
I don't remember all about the original discussion, but here's three of my
entries from back in the days:
<http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg04647.html>
<http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg04386.html>
<http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08599.html>
Although the topics in which the messages appear are unrelated, they all
talk about the same thing, namely having Atom Entries as first-class web
citizens. Back then, reaching this goal was enough of a struggle; defining
Atom Entries' own MIME type was unthinkable.
--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
