On Jun 2, 2007, at 9:11 AM, David Janes wrote:
On 6/1/07, Ryan King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 10:59 AM, David Janes wrote:
> I concur. Time to start ramping up for hAtom 0.2, if I can get some
> blocks of free time.
I'm more than willing to help. I have time to spend on it right now.
I'll work on collecting issues to deal with.
Excellent. Brian indicated some willingness a while ago to help
with this too.
As a starting point, may I _suggest_ that we restrict hAtom 0.2 to
_not_ adding new fields, unless they're already documented
microformats. This still gives a fair amount of scope: how does
rel-tag, rel-encloure working, better defaulting rules, loosening
restrictions / defining defaults for required fields such as updated
and author.... I think we have a reasonable amount of practical
experience to draw upon now.
If we do want to add new fields, they should be appropriated
documented in the -examples.
I think there may be an area where we need to consider adding new
fields– as it currently stands, its actually difficult to author an
hAtom instance that can be converted to valid Atom. There are just
some things missing from hAtom, but all of these seem to be
documented on http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom-issues , mostly
thanks to Robert Bachmann.
-ryan
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
