> The way to answer the question "is hAtom enough?" is to try using it > and see where if falls short.
To my mind, there were two questions I was asking: "is hAtom enough?" is one, but "is hAtom appropriate?" is another. My impression - which may be wrong - is that the use of a particular microformat conveys a kind of implicit semantic contract that the data marked up in that format is of a particular type, so I wanted to be sure that hAtom was appropriate for the particular use I was interested in. (Or is there just no such thing as 'semantically inappropriate', as long as the microformat is syntactically rich enough to express what you want and the components map in a rational way to the data you're trying to represent?) > ... The only thing I see in your list above > that isn't in hAtom is 'image,' which could easily just be in the > content of an post. The other one that I think is missing is 'source' (i.e. "Reuters", "NY Times" etc), which is perhaps more important. Interestingly, Atom (and thus hAtom) doesn't appear to have a notion of 'source', whereas RSS 2.0 does. What would be the appropriate thing to do in that case? (a) propose inclusion of 'source' in hAtom, (b) shrug and ignore it, or (c) propose another purpose-built mu-format? Thanks, Angus _______________________________________________ microformats-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
