Re: Additional 'namespace' attribute on content element?

[Jan Algermissen]

On Jan 4, 2007, at 6:30 PM, James Aylett wrote:




I don't see a big difference between
dispatch-on-namespace-of-child-of-content (which is, I believe, legal
in Atom 1.0) and dispatch-on-namespace-attribute-on-content (which is
what I think you're proposing).


Ok, but I was thinking more about out of line content, where the type  
(or namespace) hint avoids the need to dereference the content URI to  
poke into the XML.


I agree that it would be better to fix the fact of the missing MIME  
type in the first place, but I guess most groups in charge of the  
more interesting XML formats have no clue about the MIME type issue  
and that they might miss the Atom bandwagon.


[Aside: can anyone explain how hard the process to get a registered  
MIME type is in practice and why?]


Jan





James

--
/- 
-\
  James Aylett   
xapian.org
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
uncertaintydivision.org

Re: Additional 'namespace' attribute on content element?

[Jan Algermissen]

Hi Mark,

On Jan 5, 2007, at 6:21 PM, Mark Baker wrote:



On 1/4/07, Jan Algermissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I recall Mark Baker using something similar in his former RDF  
Forms draft:


http://www.markbaker.ca/2003/rdfforms/";
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";
  rdf:about="http://shoes.example.com/order-processor/";>
  application/xml
  http://shoe- 
standards.example.org/orders/shoes/"/>  <<
  http://shoe-standards.example.org/order- 
shoes/"/>




That just describes an expectation ala app:accept, rather than any
inline content ala the type attribute on atom:content.



Sure. Sorry if you feel misrepresented. I only meant to provide an  
example of how one addressed the lack of distinguished MIME types for  
some formats by using the formats namespace instead.


Jan



Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com

Atom Bidi Attribute - *Unofficial* Last Call

[James M Snell]

The Atom Bidi Attribute specification [1] updates RFC 4287 by adding a
new 'dir' attribute to the set of atomCommonAttributes.  The purpose is
to provide a means of defining the base directionality of
direction-neutral characters in Language-Sensitive text.  The rationale
is that direction-guessing schemes based on language and character
properties, while definitely useful and correct a lot of the time, are
inherently limited and flawed.  We need a way of explicitly specifying
the directionality.

Prior to moving this forward with the IESG, however, I wanted to issue
an informal last call here on the list to solicit feedback.

Note: Apache Abdera currently implements support for this attribute in
an optional and experimental extension module.

- James

[1] http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-bidi-02.txt

Re: Fwd: Atom format interpretation question

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 05:56:29 +0100, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:


If the NewsML folks want to be able to use a proper media type to  
identify

their stuff AND treat it as XML, they should come up with an appropriate
media type registration (e.g. application/newsml+xml, etc).


- Or come up with an appropriate namespace URI. Both solutions work just  
as well imo, but I'd prefer both together over just one or the other,  
though. That is, both a new MIME type (that ends with '+xml') and a  
namespace URI.


--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: Fwd: Atom format interpretation question

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 05:22:30 +0100, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


John Cowan wrote:

Am I right in thinking that content which is in fact in XML but
is labeled with a media type that is neither generic XML nor
ends in "+xml" cannot be included inline in an Atom entry?
The NewsML community (which uses the registered media-type
text/vnd.IPTC.NewsML) is concerned about this.


We've already discussed this in another thread, but since the question is  
asked in a different way here, I'd like to answer it again. John is partly  
right, but only because NewsML neither has a namespace nor an XML MIME  
type. If it had either, embedding it as XML in Atom would be no problem at  
all.


Thus, my conclusion is that this is a problem with NewsML and not with  
Atom.


--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atompub-typeparam-00.txt

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 23:12:15 +0100, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
wrote:



Bob Wyman wrote:


"It is strongly recommended that Atom processors that do recognize the
parameter detect and report "


I have no problem with the rewording. Just waiting to see what others
may have to say about it.


I also like Bob's wording better.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: Additional 'namespace' attribute on content element?

[Asbjørn Ulsberg]

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:26:46 +0100, Henri Sivonen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Atom is quite reasonable here. An XML vocabulary that doesn't have a  
MIME type that follows the convention *and* doesn't have a namespace is  
itself a badly-behaved XML vocabulary.


My point exactly.

--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

Re: Additional 'namespace' attribute on content element?

[Mark Baker]

On 1/4/07, Jan Algermissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I recall Mark Baker using something similar in his former RDF Forms draft:

http://www.markbaker.ca/2003/rdfforms/";
  xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#";
  rdf:about="http://shoes.example.com/order-processor/";>
  application/xml
  http://shoe-standards.example.org/orders/shoes/"/>  <<
  http://shoe-standards.example.org/order-shoes/"/>



That just describes an expectation ala app:accept, rather than any
inline content ala the type attribute on atom:content.

Mark.
--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies  http://www.coactus.com

Re: Additional 'namespace' attribute on content element?

[A. Pagaltzis]

* James Aylett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-01-04 18:55]:
> I don't see a big difference between dispatch on namespace of
> child of content (which is, I believe, legal in Atom 1.0) and
> dispatch on namespace attribute on content (which is what I
> think you're proposing).

Except when there is nothing you can dispatch on because the
vocabulary in question is not in a namespace.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // 

Re: Additional 'namespace' attribute on content element?

[Henri Sivonen]

On Jan 5, 2007, at 09:47, Martin Duerst wrote:


So I think that Atom is a bit out on it's egde if it says
'if you don't have a +xml Mime Type, you're not XML'.


No, Atom says that if you don't use application/xml or an +xml type,  
you don't get to use an embedded subtree and your format gets the  
kind of treatment that non-XML formats get.


Atom is quite reasonable here. An XML vocabulary that doesn't have a  
MIME type that follows the convention *and* doesn't have a namespace  
is itself a badly-behaved XML vocabulary.


--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/

Re: Fwd: Atom format interpretation question

[Joe Gregorio]

On 1/5/07, Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 1/4/07, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the NewsML folks want to be able to use a proper
> mediatype to identify their stuff AND treat it as XML,
> they should come upwith an appropriate media type
> registration (e.g.application/newsml+xml, etc).

Did the "+xml" convention ever get formalized in some RFC? I know we all
*think* that tacking "+xml" onto the end of something means that it is some
use of XML, however, if I remember correctly, this little bit of syntax has
never actually been formalized... Or have I missed something? Is there an
RFC that defines what "+xml" means?


http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3023.txt

""This document also standardizes a convention (using
  the suffix '+xml') for naming media types outside of these five types
  when those media types represent XML MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail
  Extensions) entities.""

  -joe

--
Joe Gregoriohttp://bitworking.org

Re: Additional 'namespace' attribute on content element?

[Martin Duerst]

At 16:13 07/01/05, Asbj\x8F\xD3n Ulsberg wrote:
>
>On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:00:29 +0100, Jan Algermissen  
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> on the NewsML list, an issue came up that due to they lack of a MIME  
>> type for NewsML using NewsML as Atom content is somewhat problematic[1];  
>> I think this is the case with most of the more interesting XML  
>> applications out there.
>
>The more interesting XML applications out there should get a proper MIME  
>type, that's all. Nothing wrong with Atom in this case, imo.

Sorry, wrong.

Using +xml at the end of a Mime Type is a good convention, but it
is only a convention. There is no requirement for a Mime Type that
uses XML to end in +xml. Also, the +xml convention was established
several years later than XML itself.

So I think that Atom is a bit out on it's egde if it says
'if you don't have a +xml Mime Type, you're not XML'.

Regards,Martin.




#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Re: Fwd: Atom format interpretation question

[Bjoern Hoehrmann]

* Bob Wyman wrote:
>Did the "+xml" convention ever get formalized in some RFC? I know we all
>*think* that tacking "+xml" onto the end of something means that it is some
>use of XML, however, if I remember correctly, this little bit of syntax has
>never actually been formalized... Or have I missed something? Is there an
>RFC that defines what "+xml" means?

RFC 3023 and RFC 4288.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/ 

Re: Fwd: Atom format interpretation question

[Bob Wyman]

On 1/4/07, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> If the NewsML folks
want to be able to use a proper

mediatype to identify their stuff AND treat it as XML,
they should come upwith an appropriate media type
registration (e.g.application/newsml+xml, etc).


Did the "+xml" convention ever get formalized in some RFC? I know we all
*think* that tacking "+xml" onto the end of something means that it is some
use of XML, however, if I remember correctly, this little bit of syntax has
never actually been formalized... Or have I missed something? Is there an
RFC that defines what "+xml" means?

bob wyman