<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Angus McIntyre wrote: <blockquote cite="mid15778.216.169.140.2.1142958368.squirrel@webmail.nomadcode.com" type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">What's the best course of action in cases like these? My use-case doesn't exactly fit hAtom because it doesn't meet the mandatory 'author' and 'content' requirements. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">I was under the impression that most of these sorts of requirements are carried over from Atom itself, not things that hAtom invented. For example, the requirements on author as specified in RFC 4287: atom:feed elements MUST contain one or more atom:author elements, unless all of the atom:feed element's child atom:entry elements contain at least one atom:author element. Thus, I suggest you use whatever solution you came up with for generating the actual Atom feeds. Your Atom feeds are valid Atom 1.0, aren't they? :-p </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Ahem ... cough ... well, yes, actually. Give or take a few non-UTF8 characters that keep creeping in. For the Atom feeds, I seem to have got around the author requirement by using the feed owner as the author of the whole feed. I guess I just have to use that solution and decide where I want to put the author on my pages. For aesthetic reasons, I'd rather not have the author shown on those pages but I think it's counter to the spirit of microformats to write the author block and then hide it using CSS (rendering it machine-readable but human-invisible) so I may just have to bite that particular bullet in the name of compliance. With regard to my other questions, it appears to me that there is a slight disconnect in the mapping between Atom and hAtom, i.e. 1. Atom's atomEntry has atomSource, but hAtom's hentry doesn't appear to have a corresponding 'entry-source' or equivalent. </pre> </blockquote> I think you're presenting the first use case for this in hAtom. <blockquote cite="mid15778.216.169.140.2.1142958368.squirrel@webmail.nomadcode.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">2. The schema description at <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Content"><http://microformats.org/wiki/hatom#Entry_Content></a> states that 'entry-content' is 'required', but a little later on it merely says that "an Entry SHOULD have Entry Content". The Atom spec itself seems to be silent on whether 'atomContent' is required or desirable. </pre> </blockquote> For Atom, "content" is intended to be used for full content (the entire article, blog post, whatever) while "summary" is intended to be used for "a short summary, abstract, or excerpt of an entry".  The idea being that feed providers can be very explicit about what they're providing, and feed consumers can know what kind of thing they're dealing with.  It's quite reasonable to have a feed of just summaries if that's what you want to publish (IMHO). -John </body> </html>