Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-27 Thread Peter Robinson

Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Paul assures me that the remaining IETF process steps will not  
> introduce material technical changes, and so format-10 is appropriate
> as a basis for implementors to go to work.

Excellent!

> So, implementors... to work.

Just to show willing:


Peter



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-16 Thread Dan Brickley


Henry Story wrote:

Is the mixed format case really possible? Last time I looked there  
were problems,
such as different tags using attributes with the same name but with  
different
semantics. I thought we were close last time I looked, but not quite  
there.



It seems feasible for a somewhat constrained subset, on first investigation.

Dan



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-16 Thread Henry Story


Is the mixed format case really possible? Last time I looked there  
were problems,
such as different tags using attributes with the same name but with  
different
semantics. I thought we were close last time I looked, but not quite  
there.


Henry

On 15 Jul 2005, at 22:21, Dan Brickley wrote:


Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:



* Dan Brickley wrote:



http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/a1.xml




`Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9`. Hurray...



I could fix that... question is, to what? :)

The Atom spec says Atom docs are identified using the Atom media  
type, but
I don't see anything like a 'SHOULD NOT' regarding serving them  
with other types.
In the mixed-format case of an instance being both valid RDF, and  
valid Atom, we
get into pragmatics. RDF tools wouldn't know it was RDF/XML since  
Atom doesn't
allow a toplevel rdf:RDF wrapper element as foreign markup. But  
Atom tools also
have a claim on the content type. Maybe it could be content- 
negotiable? Something

for everybody...?

Dan





Testing the Feed Validator for Atom 1.0, was: The Atomic age

2005-07-16 Thread Julian Reschke


Hi,



reports a validation error (feed-level category element), where I think 
it shouldn't...


Best regards, Julian



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Antone Roundy


On Friday, July 15, 2005, at 09:56  AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
--On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:


So, implementors... to  work.


Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the "Deployment" section of .

I've update Grouper (http://www.geckotribe.com/rss/grouper/) to support 
conversion of Atom 1.0 to RSS 2.0.  A future version will support going 
the other way...when I get time to complete the major overhaul that 
will be required to do that.


Antone



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Dan Brickley


Sjoerd Visscher wrote:


Dan Brickley wrote:


Let me emphasise that I'm not claiming these Atom docs "are" reasonably
interpreted as RDF. Just that they seem to, by happy coincidence as 
it were, at least
share a syntax with RDF. The intepretation of this syntactic state of 
affairs is

up for discussion.



I've never understood what makes hybrid RDF/other xml formats 
appealing. A simple xslt conversion turnes the xml format (the whole 
format, not a subset) in much better RDF, with no compromises.


It might well be that the XSLT/GRDDL approach is best. It depends what 
you're
using Atom for. Lots of Atom constructs use an ghi 
idiom, which
won't parse as RDF. For more "data-oriented" feeds (non-blog stuff, eg. 
job listings,
ecommerce, events, maps etc) much more of the payload will live in 
extensions anyhow, and
using minimal Atom (per my example) might mean the hybrid style finds a 
niche.


For the XSLT/GRDDL case, we'd still need to agree quite which triples to 
generate, eg. whether
to use the same namespace as 'normal' Atom, so there are some details to 
work out.


cheers,

Dan



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Sjoerd Visscher


Dan Brickley wrote:

Let me emphasise that I'm not claiming these Atom docs "are" reasonably
interpreted as RDF. Just that they seem to, by happy coincidence as it 
were, at least
share a syntax with RDF. The intepretation of this syntactic state of 
affairs is

up for discussion.


I've never understood what makes hybrid RDF/other xml formats appealing. 
A simple xslt conversion turnes the xml format (the whole format, not a 
subset) in much better RDF, with no compromises.


--
Sjoerd Visscher
http://w3future.com/weblog/



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Dan Brickley


Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:


* Dan Brickley wrote:
 


http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/a1.xml
   



`Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9`. Hurray...
 


I could fix that... question is, to what? :)

The Atom spec says Atom docs are identified using the Atom media type, but
I don't see anything like a 'SHOULD NOT' regarding serving them with 
other types.
In the mixed-format case of an instance being both valid RDF, and valid 
Atom, we
get into pragmatics. RDF tools wouldn't know it was RDF/XML since Atom 
doesn't
allow a toplevel rdf:RDF wrapper element as foreign markup. But Atom 
tools also
have a claim on the content type. Maybe it could be content-negotiable? 
Something

for everybody...?

Dan



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Bjoern Hoehrmann

* Dan Brickley wrote:
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/a1.xml

`Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9`. Hurray...
-- 
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: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Dan Brickley


Robert Sayre wrote:


http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F

:)

 

Oh, is it upgraded to be a 1.0 validator? front page talks about 0.3 
still...




I've just downloaded Jing, been checking things that way using:

   java -jar jing-20030619/bin/jing.jar -c atom.rnc  a2.xml

Talking of which...

I was just now hesitating as to whether to post this, but here goes. I think
there seems to be a non-empty class of XML documents which parse as
both RDF/XML and as Atom 1.0. This class may be (a) ugly (b) quirky
(c) a frustratingly small subset of Atom 1.0, but it ... seems to exist.

I've just check in this evening's experiments; thanks to Norm for some
Relax-NG handholding btw.

According to Jing and atom.rnc,

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/a1.xml

...seems to be acceptable as Atom. I took the tiny example from the spec,
added some RDF'y bits, and fed it to some validators.

According to the RDF Validator, it's also RDF/XML (we omit the top level
rdf:RDF, so RDF tools would need some other way, eg. media type, to get
a clue that it could be parsed into triples).

More notes at 
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/notes.html


Let me emphasise that I'm not claiming these Atom docs "are" reasonably
interpreted as RDF. Just that they seem to, by happy coincidence as it 
were, at least
share a syntax with RDF. The intepretation of this syntactic state of 
affairs is

up for discussion.

cheers,

Dan

ps. congrats everyone on getting Atom 1.0 out the door!



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Tim Bray



On Jul 15, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:



http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F% 
2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F


Hmm... the feed looks OK to me; I wouldn't be surprised if it's  
tickling a bug in the just-barely-into-beta Atom 1.0 feedvalidator  
code. -Tim





:)

Robert Sayre

On 7/15/05, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



On 15 Jul 2005, at 4:56 pm, Walter Underwood wrote:



Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the "Deployment" section of .




My blog has one here:
http://www.fondantfancies.com/blog/atom1/

I think it's valid, though it's hard to tell without a validator or
even a parser. I'm currently rewriting the engine of Shrook to be
compatible too.

(You may also notice I'm doing my little bit to make sure atom:id is
implemented properly)

Graham Parks










Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Robert Sayre

http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F

:)

Robert Sayre

On 7/15/05, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On 15 Jul 2005, at 4:56 pm, Walter Underwood wrote:
> 
> > Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
> > the "Deployment" section of .
> 
> My blog has one here:
> http://www.fondantfancies.com/blog/atom1/
> 
> I think it's valid, though it's hard to tell without a validator or
> even a parser. I'm currently rewriting the engine of Shrook to be
> compatible too.
> 
> (You may also notice I'm doing my little bit to make sure atom:id is
> implemented properly)
> 
> Graham Parks
> 
>



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Graham


On 15 Jul 2005, at 4:56 pm, Walter Underwood wrote:


Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the "Deployment" section of .


My blog has one here:
http://www.fondantfancies.com/blog/atom1/

I think it's valid, though it's hard to tell without a validator or  
even a parser. I'm currently rewriting the engine of Shrook to be  
compatible too.


(You may also notice I'm doing my little bit to make sure atom:id is  
implemented properly)


Graham Parks



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Robert Sayre

Absolutely.

Robert Sayre

On 7/15/05, Henry Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> Sorry. It looks like there is a final namespace:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> Henry
> 
> On 15 Jul 2005, at 20:06, Henry Story wrote:
> >
> > It would be easy to add atom to BlogEd, though I really would like the
> >
> >http://bblfish.net/blog/archive.
> > 10.atom">
> >
> > to be agreed upon. This would allow me to place all the blog
> > content in an
> > archive. It would of course also be useful to have the namespace.
> >
> > Henry
> >
> > On 15 Jul 2005, at 17:56, Walter Underwood wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> --On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> So, implementors... to  work.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
> >> the "Deployment" section of .
> >>
> >> Ultraseek will implement Atom. We need to think more about exactly
> >> what it means for a search engine to implement it, but we'll at
> >> least spider it.
> >>
> >> wunder
> >>
> >> "Creature with the Atom Brain, why is he acting so strange?"
> >>   Roky Erickson
> >> --
> >> Walter Underwood
> >> Principal Architect, Verity
> >>
> >
> 
>



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Henry Story


Sorry. It looks like there is a final namespace:

http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom

Is that correct?

Henry

On 15 Jul 2005, at 20:06, Henry Story wrote:


It would be easy to add atom to BlogEd, though I really would like the

   http://bblfish.net/blog/archive. 
10.atom">


to be agreed upon. This would allow me to place all the blog  
content in an

archive. It would of course also be useful to have the namespace.

Henry

On 15 Jul 2005, at 17:56, Walter Underwood wrote:



--On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:





So, implementors... to  work.




Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the "Deployment" section of .

Ultraseek will implement Atom. We need to think more about exactly
what it means for a search engine to implement it, but we'll at
least spider it.

wunder

"Creature with the Atom Brain, why is he acting so strange?"
  Roky Erickson
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Architect, Verity







Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Henry Story


It would be easy to add atom to BlogEd, though I really would like the

   http://bblfish.net/blog/archive. 
10.atom">


to be agreed upon. This would allow me to place all the blog content  
in an

archive. It would of course also be useful to have the namespace.

Henry

On 15 Jul 2005, at 17:56, Walter Underwood wrote:


--On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




So, implementors... to  work.



Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the "Deployment" section of .

Ultraseek will implement Atom. We need to think more about exactly
what it means for a search engine to implement it, but we'll at
least spider it.

wunder

"Creature with the Atom Brain, why is he acting so strange?"
  Roky Erickson
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Architect, Verity





Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread James M Snell


Congrats All!

I'll be updating my personal blog feed to Atom 1.0 shortly.  I've 
already updated my IBM internal blog feed to Atom 1.0.  Took less than 
five minutes to update from 0.3 to 1.0. 


Tim Bray wrote:



Paul assures me that the remaining IETF process steps will not  
introduce material technical changes, and so format-10 is appropriate  
as a basis for implementors to go to work.  So, implementors... to  
work.  And everyone, now is a good time to tell the world.  -Tim







Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Tim Bray



On Jul 15, 2005, at 8:56 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:



--On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




So, implementors... to  work.



Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the "Deployment" section of .


Good idea.



Ultraseek will implement Atom. We need to think more about exactly
what it means for a search engine to implement it, but we'll at
least spider it.


Want to write a few words in web-space somewhere, Walter, and we can  
put that in the Wiki? -Tim




Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Walter Underwood

--On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So, implementors... to  work.

Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the "Deployment" section of .

Ultraseek will implement Atom. We need to think more about exactly
what it means for a search engine to implement it, but we'll at
least spider it.

wunder

"Creature with the Atom Brain, why is he acting so strange?"
  Roky Erickson
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Architect, Verity



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Robert Sayre

On 7/15/05, Asbjørn Ulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:32:29 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > (Except for the namespace that is. Ouch!)
> 
> Yea, that was a bit awkward. 

http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom/BiKeShEd?

(yay!)

Robert Sayre



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Asbjørn Ulsberg


On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:32:29 +0200, Anne van Kesteren  
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:



Yay!


I second this yay. Yay!


(Except for the namespace that is. Ouch!)


Yea, that was a bit awkward. The format has a couple of other minor flaws  
as well, but nothing worth fighting for and nothing serious at all. This  
is a good specification, all in all.


--
Asbjørn Ulsberg
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»



Re: The Atomic age

2005-07-15 Thread Anne van Kesteren


Quoting Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Paul assures me that the remaining IETF process steps will not  
introduce material technical changes, and so format-10 is appropriate 
 as a basis for implementors to go to work.  So, implementors... to  
work.  And everyone, now is a good time to tell the world.  -Tim


Yay!

(Except for the namespace that is. Ouch!)


--
Anne van Kesteren




The Atomic age

2005-07-14 Thread Tim Bray


Paul assures me that the remaining IETF process steps will not  
introduce material technical changes, and so format-10 is appropriate  
as a basis for implementors to go to work.  So, implementors... to  
work.  And everyone, now is a good time to tell the world.  -Tim