draft-snell-atompub-feed-nofollow-00.txt [was: Re: Don't Aggregrate Me]

This HAS NOT yet been submitted. I'm offering it up for discussion first. http://www.snellspace.com/public/draft-snell-atompub-feed-nofollow-00.txt defines x:follow="yes|no" x:index="yes|no" and x:archive="yes|no" attributes - James

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

On 31/8/05 7:50 AM, "Peter Saint-Andre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Is not logical order, if any, determined by the datetime of the > published (or updated) element? No. I've seen a few things online where they publish chapter 3 first, followed by chapter 8, and then go back and fill in the bla

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

On 31/8/05 6:01 AM, "Mark Nottingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It sounds like you've got use cases for Atom that other use cases > (e.g., lists) make difficult to work with. Banning those other use > cases makes things easier for you, but I don't think it's good for > Atom overall. those oth

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

Or.. perhaps 1 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-index-01.txt - James Henry Story wrote: It's late here, but since I have been called... Clearly the order of the entries could not be deduced from the tags themselves. One would need to have an extra tag in ther

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

It's late here, but since I have been called... Clearly the order of the entries could not be deduced from the tags themselves. One would need to have an extra tag in there such as this tag tag:first-in-list 1 The Graphes of Wrath 1 July 2005 ... ..

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

* Thomas Broyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-30 23:40]: > Henry Story also proposed atom:id to be "order-related": Indeed, and together with an extension for expiring entries, the Netflix use case should be pretty well covered. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis //

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

On 30 Aug 2005, at 11:19 pm, Mark Nottingham wrote: I'd say an ordered list *can be* an entry that gets updated regularly. There's absolutely no reason that Netflix can't have one DVD-per-entry, and it's not a hack. Well it depends. The basic paradigm for a feed is as a newswire of recen

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

On Aug 30, 2005, at 3:08 PM, Walter Underwood wrote: That is one kind of order. Other kinds are relevance to a search term (A9 OpenSearch), editorial importance (BBC News feeds), or datetime of original publication (nearly all blog feeds, not the same as last update). Well put. It's obviou

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

I'd say an ordered list *can be* an entry that gets updated regularly. There's absolutely no reason that Netflix can't have one DVD-per-entry, and it's not a hack. On 30/08/2005, at 2:04 PM, Graham wrote: But conceptually Bob is absolutely correct. An ordered list is just an entry that

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

--On August 30, 2005 3:50:45 PM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> One could read that to mean that feeds are fundamentally unordered or that >> Atom doesn't say what the order means. > > Is not logical order, if any, determined by the datetime of the published > (or updated)

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

--On August 30, 2005 3:50:45 PM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Otherwise, it is not possible to go from Atom to RSS 1.0. > > I assume you mean from RSS 1.0 to Atom. :-) No. You can go from a Bag to List by ignoring the order. RSS 1.0 is a List, so you would need to invent

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

Walter Underwood wrote: --On August 30, 2005 1:49:57 AM -0400 Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has proposed extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve got folk who are proposing much the same for Atom (i.e. statefu

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

--On August 30, 2005 1:49:57 AM -0400 Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has proposed > extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve got folk who are > proposing much the same for Atom (i.e. stateful, incremental or par

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

Bob Wyman wrote: I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has proposed extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve got folk who are proposing much the same for Atom (i.e. stateful, incremental or partitioned feeds)… I think they are wrong. Feeds aren’t lists

RE: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

Mark Nottingham wrote: >Are you saying that when/if Netflix switches over to Atom, they > shouldn't use it for the Queue? No. I'm saying that if Netflix switches over to Atom, what they should do is insert the Queue information, as a list, into a single entry within the feed. This

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

On 30 Aug 2005, at 9:01 pm, Mark Nottingham wrote: It sounds like you've got use cases for Atom that other use cases (e.g., lists) make difficult to work with. Banning those other use cases makes things easier for you, but I don't think it's good for Atom overall. But conceptually Bob is

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

Mark Nottingham wrote: Sorry, Bob I disagree. I tried to introduce a rigid concept of what a feed is much earlier, and people pushed back; as a result, Atom doesn't have a firm definition of the nature of a feed. As a result, we can't go and say what it can't be at a later date. Beside

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

Sorry, Bob I disagree. I tried to introduce a rigid concept of what a feed is much earlier, and people pushed back; as a result, Atom doesn't have a firm definition of the nature of a feed. As a result, we can't go and say what it can't be at a later date. Besides which, I think the use c

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

Mhh. Good point too. For some reason though, this is starting to make me think that a feed is an entry again... Henry On 30 Aug 2005, at 13:23, Graham wrote: How would this apply to the most problematic example of a list feed, the BBC news headline page: http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk//rss/

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

How would this apply to the most problematic example of a list feed, the BBC news headline page: http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk//rss/newsonline_uk_edition/front_page/rss.xml Which has the top stories first (amongst other structure) and is a hell of a lot more usable in news readers that preserve

Re: "Top 10" and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

+1 I completely agree with Bob again. Though my preference of course would be to put RDF in the content. RDF has structures for ordered lists. It probably has vocabularies for songs. It has vocabulary to specify the author of a work, etc... And with foaf you could also specify which of the a