Re: Atom Notification Protocol Published
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:34:18 -0500, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Snell wrote: > > For XMPP-enabled environments, draft-saintandre-atompub-notify-01 > > is Goodness. Not every environment is going to be XMPP-enabled. > > Just about everyone is HTTP POST enabled. > I think that focusing on the differences between XMPP and HTTP POST > is not really useful in this discussion. Each transport protocol has > advantages in one or another environment. What's interesting is not the > transport protocol but rather the payload that is transported! (i.e. The > slogan "It's about the Entries, Stupid!" applies in this case.) You're absolutely correct of course. > I think the important point is that there probably isn't a great > deal of justification for having different payload formats for these > protocols. If we strip away the XMPP and HTTP "transport" wrappers, > overhead, etc. I don't see any reason why it would be useful to have > different messages. > Honestly I do not know enough about the use cases of the XMPP based mechanism to pass judgement on their payload formats. What I can say, however, is that for the Atom Notification Protocol (ANP) approach, nothing more than the entry and feed elements are necessary. If we can get some alignment between this and the XMPP stuff, wonderful, but I'd very much like to avoid adding anything else to the ANP payloads > bob wyman > > -- - James Snell http://www.snellspace.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Atom Notification Protocol Published
Requiring atom:head in entries posted without an enclosing feed is fine. I'll go ahead and make that change. On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 02:42:34 -0500, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would strongly recommend that it be required that an atom:entry that is > published with no enclosing atom:feed MUST contain an atom:head element. If > this is not the case, the published atom:entries will be essentially > anonymous and thus largely useless. Virtually every Atom processor in > existence requires elements of atom:head when handling entries. I can > imagine very few applications (other than closed ones) that could make use > of atom:entries that do not contain atom:head elements and are not > themselves enclosed in atom:feeds. > > bob wyman > > -- - James Snell http://www.snellspace.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: "Role of RSS in Science Publishing": Atom is in RDF format
I did not quite finish the last simplification (I had forgotten to remove a ParseType and a rdf:type). The result should have been Example Feed http://example.org/"/> 2003-12-13T18:30:02Z John Doe Atom Powered Robots Run Amok vemmi://example.org/2003/32397"/> 2003-12-13T18:30:02Z This exercise should be done with a much larger example, to see what bugs remain in the current spec. The above exercise show the following bugs: - Feed should probably be capitalized as above - id should take an href as above instead of the example from the spec "vemmi://example.org/2003/32397" Things like that are really simple cleaning up exercises, that would in no way change the functionality of Atom, but allow all of the RSS1.0 folk with their experience to declare Atom as their successor format, and Atom to come clean on its extensibility requirement from the charter. The nice thing is that this is done whilst taking on board all the criticism from the RSS2.0 folk. It looks to me that Atom is close to ending the RSS wars. Time to smoke the peace pipe. Henry Story On 18 Dec 2004, at 18:21, Henry Story wrote: Example Feed http://example.org/"/> 2003-12-13T18:30:02Z John Doe Atom Powered Robots Run Amok vemmi://example.org/2003/32397"/> 2003-12-13T18:30:02Z
