Re: [uf-discuss] hAtom question
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; hAtom 0.2 will have a rule for deciding > > what the default is, though what that rule is is a mystery > > Super - makes life much easier (author = site domain name?!?) That's one option that was discussed. Another was combining it with some sort of "anon" name, such as is used in hReview. After further discussion, we decided to research what people do in the Atom world, as they must come across this problem occasionally too! Regards, etc... -- David Janes Founder, BlogMatrix http://www.blogmatrix.com http://www.onaswarm.com http://www.onamine.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] hAtom question
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; hAtom 0.2 will have a rule for deciding > what the default is, though what that rule is is a mystery Super - makes life much easier (author = site domain name?!?) > > The updated date is a little more problematic. My first inclination > would be to say find a way to squeeze it in there. My second > inclination ... and this is entirely my opinion and probably rubs a > lot of people the wrong way ... is just to do it without the updated > element and see if the spec catches up with the usage. Yup, that was were we were heading Thanks mate > > Regards, etc... > > > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Michael Smethurst > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 updated/created requirements. Any idea if/when this will happen? >> >> I'd like to add hAtom to all our episode aggregations [4] on >> bbc.co.uk/programmes and authorship and dating are tricky >> >> Sorry if I'm being a numpty - just a bit confused >> >> michael >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema >> >> [2] http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Author >> >> [3] http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com/:entry:blogmatrix-2008-03-05-/ >> >> [4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/formats/documentaries >> >> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ >> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal >> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. >> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. >> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance >> on it and notify the sender immediately. >> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. >> Further communication will signify your consent to this. >> >> ___ >> microformats-discuss mailing list >> microformats-discuss@microformats.org >> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss >> > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] hAtom question
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 defaulting rules to decide what they are! On to your questions: - 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; hAtom 0.2 will have a rule for deciding what the default is, though what that rule is is a mystery The updated date is a little more problematic. My first inclination would be to say find a way to squeeze it in there. My second inclination ... and this is entirely my opinion and probably rubs a lot of people the wrong way ... is just to do it without the updated element and see if the spec catches up with the usage. Regards, etc... On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:57 AM, Michael Smethurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 updated/created requirements. Any idea if/when this will happen? > > I'd like to add hAtom to all our episode aggregations [4] on > bbc.co.uk/programmes and authorship and dating are tricky > > Sorry if I'm being a numpty - just a bit confused > > michael > > > > > > > > > [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema > > [2] http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Author > > [3] http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com/:entry:blogmatrix-2008-03-05-/ > > [4] http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/formats/documentaries > > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/ > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal > views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance > on it and notify the sender immediately. > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. > Further communication will signify your consent to this. > > ___ > microformats-discuss mailing list > microformats-discuss@microformats.org > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss > -- David Janes Founder, BlogMatrix http://www.blogmatrix.com http://www.onaswarm.com http://www.onamine.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
On 9/10/07, David Janes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/10/07, Scott Reynen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As at least two people missed that, it may be worthwhile to make it > > more obvious. I think hCard does this a little more clearly, with an > > asterisk after each required-but-implied element, and then an element- > > specific note: > > > > http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard#Property_List > > Since this is harmless, I'll add this to the spec, say if there's no > disagreement in the next 24 hours. Done [1]. Regards, etc... [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema -- David Janes Founder, BlogMatrix http://www.blogmatrix.com http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
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 resolve the > > issue for you. > > As at least two people missed that, it may be worthwhile to make it > more obvious. I think hCard does this a little more clearly, with an > asterisk after each required-but-implied element, and then an element- > specific note: > > http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard#Property_List Since this is harmless, I'll add this to the spec, say if there's no disagreement in the next 24 hours. Regards, etc... -- David Janes Founder, BlogMatrix http://www.blogmatrix.com http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
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 missed that, it may be worthwhile to make it more obvious. I think hCard does this a little more clearly, with an asterisk after each required-but-implied element, and then an element- specific note: http://microformats.org/wiki/hcard#Property_List Peace, Scott ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
> There is... reffering back to Michaels original post.. > > http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema says "updated. required > using datetime-design-pattern." > > whereas http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Updated says "an > Entry SHOULD have an Entry Updated element" > > 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. Regards, etc... [1] http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema -- David Janes Founder, BlogMatrix http://www.blogmatrix.com http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
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 interchangeable terms for > > authors. > > > > As for the inconsistency - I'm not sure to be honest. I assume it's > > an over-sight on the contributors part. If no one has any clear > > reason why it should say one thing in one place, and another somewhere > > else, then I'd advise it to be clarified to match our conversation > > here. > > I'm not sure what you're saying about the honest part. > > Atom entries MUST have "updated" [1]. Many blogging tools (blogger, > for example) only provide "published" and most templates we have seen > only use "published". Thus this is the way we get the hAtom rules. > > If there's an inconsistency in the hAtom spec, please point it out and > I'll work on correcting it. > > Regards, etc... > > [1] http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/#requiredEntryElements > There is... reffering back to Michaels original post.. http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Schema says "updated. required using datetime-design-pattern." whereas http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Updated says "an Entry SHOULD have an Entry Updated element" 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. :) -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
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 - I'm not sure to be honest. I assume it's > an over-sight on the contributors part. If no one has any clear > reason why it should say one thing in one place, and another somewhere > else, then I'd advise it to be clarified to match our conversation > here. I'm not sure what you're saying about the honest part. Atom entries MUST have "updated" [1]. Many blogging tools (blogger, for example) only provide "published" and most templates we have seen only use "published". Thus this is the way we get the hAtom rules. If there's an inconsistency in the hAtom spec, please point it out and I'll work on correcting it. Regards, etc... [1] http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/syndication/#requiredEntryElements -- David Janes Founder, BlogMatrix http://www.blogmatrix.com http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
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, you'd be best to > > use both. > > Whoops, Frances said "published". The main thing is _one_ of them is 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 - I'm not sure to be honest. I assume it's an over-sight on the contributors part. If no one has any clear reason why it should say one thing in one place, and another somewhere else, then I'd advise it to be clarified to match our conversation here. -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
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 it is > > > > > > http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Updated > > > > > > Says it's a should and parsers will fall back to published date > > > > > > > Yeah, that's right. I've found that many people tend to just use > > published though (myself included), and forego ever using updated. > > > > What're you having problems with? > > > Apologies for the reply to myself, but I just spotted what you mean... > the schema refers to published as a MUST and the specific information > as a SHOULD, yeah? > > I'd treat updated as a SHOULD. It's the date in general (published or > updated) that should be described as the MUST, as far as I'm aware. You MUST have either on an entry one of: - "updated" - "updated" and "published" - or "published" (which implies an updated value) 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. The peculiarities, such as they are, in this rule come from the intersection of the MUST requirements in Atom and the real world examples we found. Regards, etc... -- David Janes Founder, BlogMatrix http://www.blogmatrix.com http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
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 "published". The main thing is _one_ of them is required: use the semantically correct thing for the data you have. -- David Janes Founder, BlogMatrix http://www.blogmatrix.com http://blogmatrix.blogmatrix.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
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 >> >> Says it's a should and parsers will fall back to published date >> > > Yeah, that's right. I've found that many people tend to just use > published though (myself included), and forego ever using updated. > > What're you having problems with? Am also planning to use just published and ignore updated Just wondered why the wiki is inconsistent?!? http://www.bbc.co.uk/ This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
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 > > > > Says it's a should and parsers will fall back to published date > > > > Yeah, that's right. I've found that many people tend to just use > published though (myself included), and forego ever using updated. > > What're you having problems with? Apologies for the reply to myself, but I just spotted what you mean... the schema refers to published as a MUST and the specific information as a SHOULD, yeah? I'd treat updated as a SHOULD. It's the date in general (published or updated) that should be described as the MUST, as far as I'm aware. -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
Re: [uf-discuss] Hatom question
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 > Yeah, that's right. I've found that many people tend to just use published though (myself included), and forego ever using updated. What're you having problems with? -- Frances Berriman http://fberriman.com ___ microformats-discuss mailing list microformats-discuss@microformats.org http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
