There's two different levels of abstraction in the hAtom spec:
- the logical model, which maps on to the Atom spec
- the physical model, which is the class names etc.
Not everything in the logical model has to be present in the physical
model (i.e. your hAtom markup). Why? Because we have
Morning
The schema section of the hAtom spec [1] says:
author. required using hCard. [*]
But the entry author section [2] says:
an Entry SHOULD have at least one Entry Author element
Should this be a MUST?
Also in a blog post [3] David Janes suggests that hAtom 0.2 may drop the
author and
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Michael Smethurst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/3/08 10:20, David Janes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- I'll be doing the hAtom 0.2 stuff Real Soon Now ;-)
- you can safely assume that the requirement for having the Author
element is going to disappear;
Just a quick question to ask whether hatom requires an updated?
http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema
says it is
http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Updated
Says it's a should and parsers will fall back to published date
?!?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments)
On 10/09/2007, Michael Smethurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a quick question to ask whether hatom requires an updated?
http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema
says it is
http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Updated
Says it's a should and parsers will fall back to published date
On 10/09/2007, Frances Berriman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Michael Smethurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a quick question to ask whether hatom requires an updated?
http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema
says it is
http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Updated
On 10/9/07 15:42, Frances Berriman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Michael Smethurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a quick question to ask whether hatom requires an updated?
http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema
says it is
http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Updated
On 9/10/07, David Janes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Frances mentions, most people just use updated, but if your
underlying CMS knows the difference between the publish date and the
updated date and you want to expose this information, you'd be best to
use both.
Whoops, Frances said
On 9/10/07, Frances Berriman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Frances Berriman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/09/2007, Michael Smethurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a quick question to ask whether hatom requires an updated?
http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema
says
On 10/09/2007, David Janes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/10/07, David Janes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As Frances mentions, most people just use updated, but if your
underlying CMS knows the difference between the publish date and the
updated date and you want to expose this information,
On 9/10/07, Frances Berriman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aye - it's that slip of the tongue which seems all too common when
discussing posting dates that causes the confusion, in my opinion.
Published and updated tend to be rather interchangeable terms for
authors.
As for the inconsistency -
On 10/09/2007, David Janes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 9/10/07, Frances Berriman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aye - it's that slip of the tongue which seems all too common when
discussing posting dates that causes the confusion, in my opinion.
Published and updated tend to be rather
On Sep 10, 2007, at 10:39 AM, David Janes wrote:
The first suggests a must and the second a should. It's just a bit
confusing, so any help to iron that out would be fabulous. :)
See the last line of that section [1]; I think this will resolve the
issue for you.
As at least two people
On 9/10/07, Scott Reynen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sep 10, 2007, at 10:39 AM, David Janes wrote:
The first suggests a must and the second a should. It's just a bit
confusing, so any help to iron that out would be fabulous. :)
See the last line of that section [1]; I think this will
14 matches
Mail list logo
