Re: draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-01.txt
Six Apart is looking to develop an experimental implementation of the Feed Thread extension for Atom. However, I have a few questions: I see this extension as a logical place to list all feedback (both comments and trackbacks). However, I dont see a way for the extension to differentiate between the two types of feedback an entry may receive. Does anyone know of a way to achieve that? Byrne Reese Manager, Platform Technology http://www.sixapart.com/pronet/
Re: draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-01.txt
Byrne Reese wrote: Six Apart is looking to develop an experimental implementation of the Feed Thread extension for Atom. However, I have a few questions: I see this extension as a logical place to list all feedback (both comments and trackbacks). However, I don’t see a way for the extension to differentiate between the two types of feedback an entry may receive. Does anyone know of a way to achieve that? I'd say that « If a comment uses an atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED]alternate] or an atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED], it is considered a remote comment (similar to trackback/postback). If using atom:link to link to the remote resource, the content might be included in atom:content as well. Remote comments should provide an atom:summary. If a comment has no atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED]alternate] and no atom:content/@src, it is a local comment (comment added on an entry, similar to comment submission HTML forms). Local comments must use atom:content and shouldn't use atom:summary. » (see http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01384.html for the complete discussion) -- Thomas Broyer
Re: draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-01.txt
Thomas Broyer wrote: Byrne Reese wrote: Six Apart is looking to develop an experimental implementation of the Feed Thread extension for Atom. However, I have a few questions: I see this extension as a logical place to list all feedback (both comments and trackbacks). However, I don’t see a way for the extension to differentiate between the two types of feedback an entry may receive. Does anyone know of a way to achieve that? I'd say that « If a comment uses an atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED]alternate] or an atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED], it is considered a remote comment (similar to trackback/postback). If using atom:link to link to the remote resource, the content might be included in atom:content as well. Remote comments should provide an atom:summary. If a comment has no atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED]alternate] and no atom:content/@src, it is a local comment (comment added on an entry, similar to comment submission HTML forms). Local comments must use atom:content and shouldn't use atom:summary. » (see http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01384.html for the complete discussion) +1
