Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
On 5/6/05, Martin Duerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 11:50 05/05/06, Sam Ruby wrote: Tim Bray wrote: +1 There are people who want to publish feeds without rel=alternate links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to do without strong reasons, as in loss of interoperability. I don't see the reasons here as strong enough. -Tim +1 as well. In this case, the problems faced by producers seem to outweigh those faced by consumers. The link doesn't seem to be helpful as an identifier, so that's orthogonal. Robert Sayre
Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
At 11:50 05/05/06, Sam Ruby wrote: Tim Bray wrote: +1 There are people who want to publish feeds without rel=alternate links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to do without strong reasons, as in loss of interoperability. I don't see the reasons here as strong enough. -Tim +1 here, too, since long ago. FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to do additional work: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html Well, yes, but how much work can that possibly be? Regards,Martin.
Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
Graham wrote: On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote: FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to do additional work: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous. +1 to the Pace +1 as well. That something which has been developed against a previous draft will not work with a change in the format seems to be quite natural. On the other hand, we also heard of feeds that need to make up links (which doesn't seem very useful to me). Best regards, Julian
Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
Graham wrote: On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote: FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to do additional work: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous. +1 to the Pace This Pace is not one that I plan to lie down in the road over. However, it continues to puzzle the bejeebers out of me. The channel link element is required in every version of RSS from 0.91 to 1.0 to 2.0. And as a co-author of the feedvalidator, I have seen a lot of broken feeds where people have either inadvertently or deliberately ignored the specification, but I don't recall ever seeing one where this element was not present. My concern is not that tools will need to be updated. My concern is that tools won't know that they need to update. How will they know that they need to update to handle a set of feeds that nobody is currently providing? Something that WOULD attract my attention is somebody saying here is a set of feeds that I would like to provide that I can't provide in a valid way according to any of the available RSS specifications. - Sam Ruby
Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
On 6 May 2005, at 1:26 pm, Sam Ruby wrote: My concern is not that tools will need to be updated. My concern is that tools won't know that they need to update. How will they know that they need to update to handle a set of feeds that nobody is currently providing? How is this different to any of the other new features in Atom? No one agrees with you on this point; If you don't have anything else, please stop making everyone else's life harder by labouring a point that doesn't affect you in any way. Something that WOULD attract my attention is somebody saying here is a set of feeds that I would like to provide that I can't provide in a valid way according to any of the available RSS specifications. I have private RSS feeds showing new referrals for my websites. They do not have corresponding web pages, and don't have feed-level links. I think these kind of feeds make up a significant chunk of the demand for dropping the requirement. Graham
PaceOptionalFeedLink
+1 There are people who want to publish feeds without rel=alternate links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to do without strong reasons, as in loss of interoperability. I don't see the reasons here as strong enough. -Tim
Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
Tim Bray wrote: +1 There are people who want to publish feeds without rel=alternate links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to do without strong reasons, as in loss of interoperability. I don't see the reasons here as strong enough. -Tim FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to do additional work: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html - Sam Ruby
Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote: FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to do additional work: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous. +1 to the Pace Graham
Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
So, if accepted, we'd have 2 conflicting rules. The Pace needs an edit) D'oh. You're right. I've edited the Pace, to just delete the MUST. Robert Sayre
RE: PaceOptionalFeedLink
In regards to atom:source construct: This, to me, seems like adding verbosity to the feed that does not necessarily need to be there. The attributes specified in the source construct are the 'meta' elements of any feed. Why not make the source element a URI to the resources feed and implementers who want the info can deference the link. -Kevin Mesiab Founder, Electric Diary Publishing 208-863-4235 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Sayre Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:35 AM To: Graham Cc: Eric Scheid; atom-syntax Subject: Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink So, if accepted, we'd have 2 conflicting rules. The Pace needs an edit) D'oh. You're right. I've edited the Pace, to just delete the MUST. Robert Sayre
PaceOptionalFeedLink
== Abstract == Remove the requirement for a feed-level link element. == Status == Open == Rationale == The requirement makes people jump through hoops for little gain, since there is a strong incentive to provide the link if you have something. Unlike entries, feeds are almost always dereferenced from a URI. == Proposal == In section 4.1.1, strike the line that reads atom:feed elements MUST contain at least one atom:link element with a relation of alternate. and replace it with atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:link element with a rel attribute value of alternate that has the same combination of type and hreflang attribute values. == Impacts == == Notes == CategoryProposals
Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
--On April 30, 2005 3:03:50 PM -0400 Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:link element with a rel attribute value of alternate that has the same combination of type and hreflang attribute values. That actually specifies something different, the duplication, without saying whether atom:link is recommended. I recommend adding this text: An atom:feed element SHOULD/MAY contain one such atom:link element. I'll let other people contribute on whether it is SHOULD or MAY. wunder -- Walter Underwood Principal Architect, Verity
