hatom-issues

(Difference between revisions)

Jump to: navigation, search
m (Comparisons: Fixed broken link)
m (Fixed broken links (potentially))
Line 320: Line 320:
** +1 [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]
** +1 [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]
** +1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
** +1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
-
** +1 [[BenjaminCarlyle]]
+
** +1 [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]
** +1 [[RyanKing]]
** +1 [[RyanKing]]
** +1 [[User:MarkRickerby|MarkRickerby]]
** +1 [[User:MarkRickerby|MarkRickerby]]
Line 349: Line 349:
** +1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
** +1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
** +1 [[User:KevinMarks|KevinMarks]], as this is what they are most like in blogposts [[User:Kevin Marks|Kevin Marks]]
** +1 [[User:KevinMarks|KevinMarks]], as this is what they are most like in blogposts [[User:Kevin Marks|Kevin Marks]]
-
** +1 [[BenjaminCarlyle]], atom:entry/title only
+
** +1 [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]], atom:entry/title only
** +½ [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]], atom:entry/title only
** +½ [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]], atom:entry/title only
-
** +½ [[PaulBryson]], redundant?
+
** +½ [[User:PaulBryson|PaulBryson]], redundant?
* <code>title</code> (Atom consistency)
* <code>title</code> (Atom consistency)
** -1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]].  Already defined to mean something else in [[hcard|hCard]].  The same term should not be used to mean different things.
** -1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]].  Already defined to mean something else in [[hcard|hCard]].  The same term should not be used to mean different things.
Line 359: Line 359:
** &plusmn;0 [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]] see my note below
** &plusmn;0 [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]] see my note below
** -1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] (does not mean the "name" of the post/entry)
** -1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] (does not mean the "name" of the post/entry)
-
** +1 [[BenjaminCarlyle]], atom:feed/title only
+
** +1 [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]], atom:feed/title only
=== Discussion ===
=== Discussion ===
-
* [[BenjaminCarlyle]]: If one were to review a blog entry with [[hReview]] we would fill out the "fn" field with the atom:entry/title. This suggests to me that fn may be sufficient for this title usage. headline is more semantically specific, and does seem appropriate. It may be a line-ball call as to whether a new term is required, or whether the atom:entry context is sufficient to indicate the fn is also a headline.
+
* [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]: If one were to review a blog entry with [[hReview]] we would fill out the "fn" field with the atom:entry/title. This suggests to me that fn may be sufficient for this title usage. headline is more semantically specific, and does seem appropriate. It may be a line-ball call as to whether a new term is required, or whether the atom:entry context is sufficient to indicate the fn is also a headline.
* BenjaminCarlyle: Are we considering atom:feed/title in this discussion? There is some suggestion that atom:title should be "fn", separate to any value of atom:entry/title.
* BenjaminCarlyle: Are we considering atom:feed/title in this discussion? There is some suggestion that atom:title should be "fn", separate to any value of atom:entry/title.
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]: [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2426.txt vcard] defines "FN" to be "to specify the formatted text corresponding to the name of the object the vCard represents". If we reject FN, are we not making too subtle a distinction that the atom:title isn't the name of the post? I'll also note that the [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287 domain experts] believe that the atom:title of an entry is pretty well the same sort of thing as the atom:title of a feed.
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]: [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2426.txt vcard] defines "FN" to be "to specify the formatted text corresponding to the name of the object the vCard represents". If we reject FN, are we not making too subtle a distinction that the atom:title isn't the name of the post? I'll also note that the [http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4287 domain experts] believe that the atom:title of an entry is pretty well the same sort of thing as the atom:title of a feed.
Line 368: Line 368:
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]: to summarize (I think), Tantek argues on the link above that atom:title can and does include more than the name.
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]: to summarize (I think), Tantek argues on the link above that atom:title can and does include more than the name.
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]: we're now at the point where FN is the title of a movie, a DVD, and a book, but not the atom:title of an entry and definitely not the atom:title of a feed.
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]: we're now at the point where FN is the title of a movie, a DVD, and a book, but not the atom:title of an entry and definitely not the atom:title of a feed.
-
* [[BenjaminCarlyle]]: Entry and feed titles are both usually used as the name of the entry of feed, however examples exist where the entry title is [http://planet.freedesktop.org/ changed for republication] or is an auto-generated string (eg [http://www.advogato.org/person/cinamod/ date]). Headline is a good substitute at the entry level, and has a clear analogue in print. <p>If headline is selected for entry a different term would be required for feed. Headline cannot meaningfully be used for a feed title any more than the name of a newspaper can be called a headline. Working back from the newspaper analogue, I am aware of the use of both name or title to describe the analogous text. In the absence of evidence that a feed's desired title is ever anything but a human-created name for the blog, my support falls behind fn for feed title only. The danger remains that someone will supply non-name data as "fn" in order to "get it into the atom:title element". For this reason I remain open to further naming suggestions and to any example in the wild where this might already occur.</p><p>There has been some discussion that because the two are a single term in atom the domain experts consider the semantics to be the same. I suggest differently. The double use of title is inherited from rss, and has always been disambiguated by context. rfc4287 defines title as "a Text construct that conveys a human-readable title for an entry or feed", which conveys no useful semantics. Everything in a microformat is human-readable, and it isn't suprising that the semantics of title are equivalent to "title". To be honest, I would guess that the domain experts didn't give this issue a second thought.</p>
+
* [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]: Entry and feed titles are both usually used as the name of the entry of feed, however examples exist where the entry title is [http://planet.freedesktop.org/ changed for republication] or is an auto-generated string (eg [http://www.advogato.org/person/cinamod/ date]). Headline is a good substitute at the entry level, and has a clear analogue in print. <p>If headline is selected for entry a different term would be required for feed. Headline cannot meaningfully be used for a feed title any more than the name of a newspaper can be called a headline. Working back from the newspaper analogue, I am aware of the use of both name or title to describe the analogous text. In the absence of evidence that a feed's desired title is ever anything but a human-created name for the blog, my support falls behind fn for feed title only. The danger remains that someone will supply non-name data as "fn" in order to "get it into the atom:title element". For this reason I remain open to further naming suggestions and to any example in the wild where this might already occur.</p><p>There has been some discussion that because the two are a single term in atom the domain experts consider the semantics to be the same. I suggest differently. The double use of title is inherited from rss, and has always been disambiguated by context. rfc4287 defines title as "a Text construct that conveys a human-readable title for an entry or feed", which conveys no useful semantics. Everything in a microformat is human-readable, and it isn't suprising that the semantics of title are equivalent to "title". To be honest, I would guess that the domain experts didn't give this issue a second thought.</p>
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]: '''RESOLVED''' Let's go with "headline". I'm not in love with it but so it goes. My thinking on this at this point is we won't find a good word that covers atom:entry/title and atom:feed/title and I like the idea of a (somewhat) domain specific word that captures the concept and (especially a big point for me now) it will make mixing hAtom with other uFs a little nicer.
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]: '''RESOLVED''' Let's go with "headline". I'm not in love with it but so it goes. My thinking on this at this point is we won't find a good word that covers atom:entry/title and atom:feed/title and I like the idea of a (somewhat) domain specific word that captures the concept and (especially a big point for me now) it will make mixing hAtom with other uFs a little nicer.
* [[User:PaulBryson|PaulBryson]]: I like entry-title for it's clarity.  Unfortunately, I also feel that hyphenating names together in a string adds unnecessary complexity.  In this case, it also adds a specificity that could be detrimental in the element's reuse.  Headline feels redundant with "heading", which is what the element should be.  Regardless, this is probably the best of the available choices.
* [[User:PaulBryson|PaulBryson]]: I like entry-title for it's clarity.  Unfortunately, I also feel that hyphenating names together in a string adds unnecessary complexity.  In this case, it also adds a specificity that could be detrimental in the element's reuse.  Headline feels redundant with "heading", which is what the element should be.  Regardless, this is probably the best of the available choices.
Line 379: Line 379:
** -1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
** -1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
** +1 [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]
** +1 [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]
-
** +1 [[BenjaminCarlyle]]
+
** +1 [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]
** +1 [[RyanKing]]
** +1 [[RyanKing]]
** -1 [[User:ChrisCasciano|ChrisCasciano]]
** -1 [[User:ChrisCasciano|ChrisCasciano]]
Line 400: Line 400:
=== Discussion ===
=== Discussion ===
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] - It turns out there is actually a very fine semantic distinction between the way "description" is used in vCalendar, hCalendar, xFolk, hReview, and what "content" means.  In short, those other microformats are all "about" something else, whether an actual event in spacetime, or another item.  Whereas in hAtom is the thing itself.  The feed is the data is the item.  Thus it makes sense use a different class name than "description".  Based on our [[naming-principles]], lacking an existing microformat term for this, we should use a term from a standard.  Since Atom uses "content", that is the logical name to bring over and use, whether or not it is "perfect" to capture the semantic we are trying to capture.
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] - It turns out there is actually a very fine semantic distinction between the way "description" is used in vCalendar, hCalendar, xFolk, hReview, and what "content" means.  In short, those other microformats are all "about" something else, whether an actual event in spacetime, or another item.  Whereas in hAtom is the thing itself.  The feed is the data is the item.  Thus it makes sense use a different class name than "description".  Based on our [[naming-principles]], lacking an existing microformat term for this, we should use a term from a standard.  Since Atom uses "content", that is the logical name to bring over and use, whether or not it is "perfect" to capture the semantic we are trying to capture.
-
* [[BenjaminCarlyle]]: We may also have to consider forms of blogs that carry other media. An &lt;a rel="content" href="..."/&gt; form of content may also have to be considered, although this could still be embedded in a very short html content block. I'm not quite ready to commit to "content" yet, but I agree that description may be a little weak.
+
* [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]: We may also have to consider forms of blogs that carry other media. An &lt;a rel="content" href="..."/&gt; form of content may also have to be considered, although this could still be embedded in a very short html content block. I'm not quite ready to commit to "content" yet, but I agree that description may be a little weak.
* [[User:ChrisCasciano|ChrisCasciano]] - I'd be a bit cautious about equating usage of the content class in the wild with the specific usage you'd adopt here -- that of the content of a particular item or entry. As a deveoper I know I've used the term content to designate larger page sections or as synonym for content body (or that which is not header, nav or footer). In most cases my usage has been via ID which is safe (though perhaps confusing usages of similar terms) but I'm certain I've also used it as a class to free up ID for more specific information on larger sites.
* [[User:ChrisCasciano|ChrisCasciano]] - I'd be a bit cautious about equating usage of the content class in the wild with the specific usage you'd adopt here -- that of the content of a particular item or entry. As a deveoper I know I've used the term content to designate larger page sections or as synonym for content body (or that which is not header, nav or footer). In most cases my usage has been via ID which is safe (though perhaps confusing usages of similar terms) but I'm certain I've also used it as a class to free up ID for more specific information on larger sites.
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: Chris Casciano is right.  Not only that, but note the [http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html Google HTML survey] of about a billion documents found that many web authors use "content" as a class name already, for whatever purpose they are intending.  I have changed my vote to -1 for "content".
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: Chris Casciano is right.  Not only that, but note the [http://code.google.com/webstats/2005-12/classes.html Google HTML survey] of about a billion documents found that many web authors use "content" as a class name already, for whatever purpose they are intending.  I have changed my vote to -1 for "content".
Line 431: Line 431:
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: Excerpt is by far the most frequent (>80%) use of summary, thus it makes sense to name it as such.
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: Excerpt is by far the most frequent (>80%) use of summary, thus it makes sense to name it as such.
* [[User:KevinMarks|Kevin Marks]]: Disagree - Atom allows summary to be distinct from content, though this is less usual. However, by using a class that means summary (eg abstract) we can convey an excerpt by making  it wholly within 'atom:content', or a separate abstract by putting it within the entry but not within 'content'
* [[User:KevinMarks|Kevin Marks]]: Disagree - Atom allows summary to be distinct from content, though this is less usual. However, by using a class that means summary (eg abstract) we can convey an excerpt by making  it wholly within 'atom:content', or a separate abstract by putting it within the entry but not within 'content'
-
* [[BenjaminCarlyle]]: I have been trying to convince myself that atom:summary differs semantically from iCalendar summary. The "summary or subject" wording from rfc2445 is problematic, and it seems earlier microformats have taken the "subject" side. If we were to start from rfc2445 alone we might go the other way. In the end, though, webster.com defines summary as "covering the main points succinctly". atom:summary is not really consistent with that definition, so I'll swing my weight behind excerpt. On the subject of abstract, I think the semantics are such that "abstract" and "exerpt" are distinct (non-overlapping) sets. webster.com defines abstract as "a summary of points (as of a writing) usually presented in skeletal form". An exerpt is not a summary of points, and a summary of points is not an excerpt. I think Tantek is simply suggesting that the 80% win in this case.
+
* [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]: I have been trying to convince myself that atom:summary differs semantically from iCalendar summary. The "summary or subject" wording from rfc2445 is problematic, and it seems earlier microformats have taken the "subject" side. If we were to start from rfc2445 alone we might go the other way. In the end, though, webster.com defines summary as "covering the main points succinctly". atom:summary is not really consistent with that definition, so I'll swing my weight behind excerpt. On the subject of abstract, I think the semantics are such that "abstract" and "exerpt" are distinct (non-overlapping) sets. webster.com defines abstract as "a summary of points (as of a writing) usually presented in skeletal form". An exerpt is not a summary of points, and a summary of points is not an excerpt. I think Tantek is simply suggesting that the 80% win in this case.
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: Benjamin is correct.  The vast majority (easily 80%+) of summaries in Atom, when they exist are excerpts. <p>In addition:</p>
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: Benjamin is correct.  The vast majority (easily 80%+) of summaries in Atom, when they exist are excerpts. <p>In addition:</p>
** WordPress user interface calls it "excerpt"
** WordPress user interface calls it "excerpt"
Line 455: Line 455:
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: Agreed with what Kevin wrote.  Also, rel="link" doesn't actually make sense when you do the analysis as described in the [[rel-faq]].  The destination of the link is not really a "link" itself with respect to the current document/file.
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: Agreed with what Kevin wrote.  Also, rel="link" doesn't actually make sense when you do the analysis as described in the [[rel-faq]].  The destination of the link is not really a "link" itself with respect to the current document/file.
* [[User:DavidJanes|David Janes]]: OK, I'm happy with this.'''STATUS - RESOLVED'''. We are using <code>rel="bookmark"</code>.
* [[User:DavidJanes|David Janes]]: OK, I'm happy with this.'''STATUS - RESOLVED'''. We are using <code>rel="bookmark"</code>.
-
* [[BenjaminCarlyle]]: No real controversy here, unless you want to start giving blog entries or feeds vcards. A vcard could contain entry or feed title as fn, as well as url.
+
* [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]: No real controversy here, unless you want to start giving blog entries or feeds vcards. A vcard could contain entry or feed title as fn, as well as url.
**  [[RyanKing]] non-issue, you can always use both.
**  [[RyanKing]] non-issue, you can always use both.
Line 462: Line 462:
** +0.5 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
** +0.5 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
** +1 [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]
** +1 [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]
-
** +1 [[BenjaminCarlyle]]
+
** +1 [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]
* <code>dtpublished</code> (Atom consistency with [http://microformats.org/wiki/naming-principles#dt_properties dt unofficial pattern])
* <code>dtpublished</code> (Atom consistency with [http://microformats.org/wiki/naming-principles#dt_properties dt unofficial pattern])
** +0.5 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] (want to consider it, while we can)
** +0.5 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]] (want to consider it, while we can)
Line 468: Line 468:
=== Discussion ===
=== Discussion ===
-
* [[BenjaminCarlyle]]: I would still like to see a clear engagement with [[last-modified-brainstorming|last-modified]] before voting on this one.
+
* [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]: I would still like to see a clear engagement with [[last-modified-brainstorming|last-modified]] before voting on this one.
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: last-modified reflects the last time the page/file was actually modified, most likely by the user.  IMHO it is a 1:1 mapping of the "Date Modified" of a file in a file system.  It is a direct mapping of what date is shown for HTTP directory listings.<p>published is defined in Atom quite differently from that, and among the alternatives it seems best to take the name from Atom precisely.</p>
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: last-modified reflects the last time the page/file was actually modified, most likely by the user.  IMHO it is a 1:1 mapping of the "Date Modified" of a file in a file system.  It is a direct mapping of what date is shown for HTTP directory listings.<p>published is defined in Atom quite differently from that, and among the alternatives it seems best to take the name from Atom precisely.</p>
-
* [[BenjaminCarlyle]]: From the [[last-modified-brainstorming]] purpose statement, emphasis added. "To specify the date of publication and the date of modification of a web page (<em>or a part thereof</em>)"
+
* [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]: From the [[last-modified-brainstorming]] purpose statement, emphasis added. "To specify the date of publication and the date of modification of a web page (<em>or a part thereof</em>)"
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: Note that Atom chose to drop "created" which is much more reflective of what current file systems etc. support.<p>The concept of "published" is distinct from a generic "created" notion, in that it indicates when the content was made public or made available to readers (even on intranets) which is often very different than when the author started typing the entry or even first saved the entry.</p>
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: Note that Atom chose to drop "created" which is much more reflective of what current file systems etc. support.<p>The concept of "published" is distinct from a generic "created" notion, in that it indicates when the content was made public or made available to readers (even on intranets) which is often very different than when the author started typing the entry or even first saved the entry.</p>
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]: It's simple, it's clear, it's not being used it's not being used already. We can make [[last-modified-brainstorming|last-modified]] consistent afterwards
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]: It's simple, it's clear, it's not being used it's not being used already. We can make [[last-modified-brainstorming|last-modified]] consistent afterwards
Line 493: Line 493:
=== Discussion ===
=== Discussion ===
* [[User:PaulBryson|PaulBryson]]: I would prefer to maintain some consistency with already existing date naming conventions, but acknowledge that these aren't as clearly human readable as they could be.
* [[User:PaulBryson|PaulBryson]]: I would prefer to maintain some consistency with already existing date naming conventions, but acknowledge that these aren't as clearly human readable as they could be.
-
* [[BenjaminCarlyle]]: I would still like to see a clear engagement with [[last-modified-brainstorming|last-modified]] before voting on this one.
+
* [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]: I would still like to see a clear engagement with [[last-modified-brainstorming|last-modified]] before voting on this one.
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: See discussion for published.  Updated is closer to last-modified than published is, however, upon careful reading of the definition of updated in Atom, it is clear that the user has the option of not changing the updated date even if they change the entry, e.g. by fixing a spelling error or something.  Thus there is an implied stronger meaning of "this entry has been semantically changed" that is a different enough semantic from last-modified as to justify a new name, and among the alternatives it seems best to take the name from Atom precisely.
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: See discussion for published.  Updated is closer to last-modified than published is, however, upon careful reading of the definition of updated in Atom, it is clear that the user has the option of not changing the updated date even if they change the entry, e.g. by fixing a spelling error or something.  Thus there is an implied stronger meaning of "this entry has been semantically changed" that is a different enough semantic from last-modified as to justify a new name, and among the alternatives it seems best to take the name from Atom precisely.
-
* [[BenjaminCarlyle]]: From [[last-modified-brainstorming]] semantics:<p>"Since both Atom and HTTP define the last-modified date (or its equivalent) as a "user-defined" value, this microformat should have the same semantics. In other words, the value should represent the last instance that the resource was changed in a way deemed significant to the publisher/author, which is not neccessarily the same as a file-system modified date-time."</p>
+
* [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]: From [[last-modified-brainstorming]] semantics:<p>"Since both Atom and HTTP define the last-modified date (or its equivalent) as a "user-defined" value, this microformat should have the same semantics. In other words, the value should represent the last instance that the resource was changed in a way deemed significant to the publisher/author, which is not neccessarily the same as a file-system modified date-time."</p>
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: They are both user defined values but *different* user defined values. <p>It is VERY important to note this distinction because Atom chose to note it.</p><p>In the 99% case, file-system, web-server (HTTP) context, the last-modified date reflects the last time the *user* modified the file or page, WITHOUT consideration for whether or not the user wanted that change to reflect a change in the last-modified date.</p><p>Atom specifically allows for the exception that a user might not update the "updated" date, even when they change the underlying blog post, spelling corrections or whatever.</p><p>This is in stark contrast to the traditional application model, where in a word processor, even if you change one character and save, you change the file system last-modified date, and hence the HTTP last-modified headers.</p>
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: They are both user defined values but *different* user defined values. <p>It is VERY important to note this distinction because Atom chose to note it.</p><p>In the 99% case, file-system, web-server (HTTP) context, the last-modified date reflects the last time the *user* modified the file or page, WITHOUT consideration for whether or not the user wanted that change to reflect a change in the last-modified date.</p><p>Atom specifically allows for the exception that a user might not update the "updated" date, even when they change the underlying blog post, spelling corrections or whatever.</p><p>This is in stark contrast to the traditional application model, where in a word processor, even if you change one character and save, you change the file system last-modified date, and hence the HTTP last-modified headers.</p>
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]:  we can make [[last-modified-brainstorming|last-modified]] consistent afterwards
* [[User:DavidJanes|DavidJanes]]:  we can make [[last-modified-brainstorming|last-modified]] consistent afterwards
Line 507: Line 507:
* <code>author</code> (Atom consistency)
* <code>author</code> (Atom consistency)
** +1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
** +1 [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]
-
** +1 [[BenjaminCarlyle]]
+
** +1 [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]
=== Discussion ===
=== Discussion ===
-
* [[BenjaminCarlyle]]: I think an author concept is generally useful to microformats, so long as you can make it clear whether it is the author of the uf wrapper or the author of the uf content that is being described. I think any wavering over whether author and contributor are both required is probably a step outside the atom specification. This may be worthwhile, with an xfn-style external definition that could relate a person to a work... or even a rel-tag-based relationship. Can room be left open for both of these possibilities for future expansion, while still providing a clear author -> atom:author translation?
+
* [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]: I think an author concept is generally useful to microformats, so long as you can make it clear whether it is the author of the uf wrapper or the author of the uf content that is being described. I think any wavering over whether author and contributor are both required is probably a step outside the atom specification. This may be worthwhile, with an xfn-style external definition that could relate a person to a work... or even a rel-tag-based relationship. Can room be left open for both of these possibilities for future expansion, while still providing a clear author -> atom:author translation?
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: My point is that in practice (>80% case again), contributor is not used.  Thus we should exclude it from hAtom in the first version.  However, I am ok with ''reserving'' contributor with the intent that if it does somehow take off, we can add it later.
* [[User:Tantek|Tantek]]: My point is that in practice (>80% case again), contributor is not used.  Thus we should exclude it from hAtom in the first version.  However, I am ok with ''reserving'' contributor with the intent that if it does somehow take off, we can add it later.
* [[RyanKing]] is &lt;address&gt; not sufficient for 'author' semantics?
* [[RyanKing]] is &lt;address&gt; not sufficient for 'author' semantics?
Line 594: Line 594:
Is it possible that other microformats found under the class~=entry or class~=feed elements need to be considered opaque?
Is it possible that other microformats found under the class~=entry or class~=feed elements need to be considered opaque?
-
-- [[BenjaminCarlyle]]
+
-- [[User:BenjaminCarlyle|BenjaminCarlyle]]
* [[User:DavidJanes|David Janes]]: The issue of "muse" and such is somewhat out of scope. However, I grasp your larger point -- what if we wanted to extend or compositie hAtom in the future. Given the 80-20 rule right now, my feeling is to set aside the problem and if it arises, define a <code>class~="opaque"</code> element. --  
* [[User:DavidJanes|David Janes]]: The issue of "muse" and such is somewhat out of scope. However, I grasp your larger point -- what if we wanted to extend or compositie hAtom in the future. Given the 80-20 rule right now, my feeling is to set aside the problem and if it arises, define a <code>class~="opaque"</code> element. --  

Revision as of 12:37, 1 May 2007

Contents


Cited example issue

Cited example issue

Andy Mabbett moved the Joomla! Melbourne User Group link to the "Examples with some problems" area of hatom and I was wondering what the problem is with it... as Operator and Tails have no problems identifying the hAtomised content. which is why I'm confused by Andy's comments about no cited examples. Can someone please offer some assistance?

I didn't find any hAtom content on that page. I can see it now, so have moved it back. Apologies if I was mistaken. Andy Mabbett 01:29, 25 Feb 2007 (PST)

hAtom 0.2

This section is for discussing what you'd like to see in the next version of hAtom, i.e. 0.2.

Geo

Relationship of rel-bookmark to url+uid

The concept of permalink is available in hCard and hCalendar as the classes url and uid. This combination matches the permalink semantics by indicating that the URL should be dereferenced to find a more dynamic or up-to-date version of the content, and that that URL is a stable unique id that can be used to identify the content.

hAtom 0.1 uses rel-bookmark for the permalink concept. The current state of uid-brainstorming indicates that the hCard and hCalendar permalink concept is likely to be used in subsequent microformats. It may be important to reconcile hAtom with that trajectory. Possible reconciliation's include:

1) To leave things as they are. The two permalink concepts are to be kept separate.

2) Treat the two concepts as equivalent. Allow both in hAtom, and consider allowing both in other formats. eg <a rel="bookmark" href="http://example.com/"> would fill out uid and url values if they are not supplied explicitly.

3) Choose one over the other for hAtom and perhaps for future microformats also. "url uid" allows for some greater freedom (uid can be pointed at a non-url uid), but it is unclear at this stage whether that freedom is warranted or advisable to permit.

Feed XXX (atom:xxx)

Template section: if there is something clearly from an Atom Feed that you'd like in hAtom 0.2, use this section as a template and replicate it in place here. See the hAtom 0.1 section below for more details.

Datetime format (atom:updated and atom:published)

2006-05-23 raised by Robert Bachmann

Atom requires the use RFC3339 datetimes, while hAtom 0.1 does not specify which datetime formats may be used.

Feed id (atom:id)

2006-04-01 raised by Robert Bachmann

atom:id is required for atom:feed. Thus it should be available in hAtom to. The Feed permalink should be used as the feed ID.

Feed permalink (atom:permalink)

2006-04-01 raised by Robert Bachmann

I'm proposing the following rules:

* feed level = inside a Feed element but not inside an Entry element

2006-04-03 ChrisCasciano - I'm not sure that having a rel-boomkark-able link element at the feed level / to designate a feed in an html page separate for the other content is anything close to normal usage on the web, so I'd be very hesitant on suggesting this element "SHOULD" exist. I'm also curious when this element would link to anything but the current page (or some element on the current page) for this to be useful in the context of the HTML doc. I think taking the "id" on the feed is a more workable solution in most cases.

2006-04-03 Robert Bachmann: I've replaced "SHOULD" with "MAY".
2006-04-24 Robert Bachmann: Maybe we could simplify my proposal to:
"Use the URI of the page; if the Feed has an "id" attribute, add that as a fragment to the page URI"
IMO this would be good enough for at least 80% of the cases.


Feed updated (atom:updated)

2006-04-01 raised by Robert Bachmann

atom:updated is required for atom:feed. Thus it should be available in hAtom to. I'm proposing the following rules:

Algorithm:

$a = array();
for each $entry in $feed {
    if ($entry.updated)
      $a.add(pad_datetime($entry.updated))
    else
      $a.add(pad_datetime($entry.published))
  }
$a.sort_by( datetime_to_utc($element) )
$feed_updated = $a[0];

* feed level = inside a Feed element but not inside an Entry element

Feed title (atom:title)

2006-04-01 raised by Robert Bachmann

atom:title is required for atom:feed. Thus it should be available in hAtom to.

I'm proposing the following rules:

2006-04-05 Robert Bachmann: Okay. Deleted "the first <h#> element in the Feed, or"
2006-04-12 DavidJanes Note also in support of this decision that many blogs use <h#> to encode the date for a group of postings
2006-04-12 Robert Bachmann: Sorry, this was a "copy & paste" mistake. Fixed now.

Feed author and Entry author (atom:author)

2006-04-01 raised by Robert Bachmann

I'm proposing the following rules for Feed author:

I'm proposing the following rules for entry author:

* feed level = inside a Feed element but not inside an Entry element

2006-04-17 Robert Bachmann: I replaced "the Feed is invalid hAtom" with "there is no Feed Author"

Entry XXX (atom:xxx)

Template section: if there is something clearly from an Atom Entry that you'd like in hAtom 0.2, use this section as a template and replicate it in place here. See the hAtom 0.1 section below for more details.

Entry id (atom:id)

2006-04-01 raised by Robert Bachmann

atom:id is required for atom:entry. Thus it should be available in hAtom to.

The Entry permalink should be used as the entry id.

2006-12-31 response by Emanla Eraton

No, it shouldn't be a permalink. It should be a "tag:" id for entries.

Author

author as an hcard is too much to require

The following 3 items were extracted from the conversation starting on irc with logs available starting around here

Other Questions and Issues

General comments, modeling issues, algorithm issues, should have issues, etc. go here.

Entry Updated Required? -- Blogger Issue

The hAtom 0.1 spec states if there is no Entry Updated element...the page is invalid hAtom I have a real problem with this because I work with Blogger, where we cannot output datetime-design-pattern-compatible datestrings for our posts... We can output some different human-readable formats and we can output a nanosecond unix-timestamp, but the template tags will not output YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS+ZZ:ZZ no matter what you do... so how are we to resolve this so that Blogger blogs can use hAtom? -- singpolyma 05:45, 28 Mar 2006 (PST)

'MAY have multiple Feed elements' -- details and viability of multiple feeds

The hAtom 0.1 spec states the follwing two items about the Feed element:

  1. the Feed element is optional and, if missing, is assumed to be the page
  2. hAtom documents MAY have multiple Feed elements

I'm concerned about the implementation details of multiple feeds and that the current 0.1 spec isn't sufficient to define multiple distinct feeds in a single html document and that even if some of those areas were modified if there are real mechanisms out there to support a document with multiple feeds.

To provide examples of how multiple feeds might reside in a document under hAtom 0.1 I've created this collection of hAtom multiple feed tests

Some of the questions that need to be answered (more details and some conclusions at a later time):

  1. Can a unique reference be made to each feed? Are there ambiguous references?
  2. Can a unique label or feed name be generated from each feed for the purpose of selection by the subscriber?
    • Using the feed title seems to be an option. It is likely (thought not guaranteed) that it is unique.
  3. What changes need to be made to the spec to make the publishing of multiple feeds in a document less ambiguous?
    • Robert Bachmann (2006-05-23): IMO the simplest soultion would be to require that each feed element MUST have an XHTML id attribute.
  4. What rules are needed for the detection, selection and consumption of feed documents so that people can select and maintain a subscription to the proper feed?
  5. How should a consuming application deal with potential changes to feeds found in a document over time (either id changes, additional feeds added, removal of feed, etc)? (this issue could be generalized to single feed documents as well)
  6. Chris Casciano (2006-07-24): A good chat session on this issue can be found here

Draft Rules for multiple feeds

(2006-07-24): Written by Chris Casciano

Discussion of Draft Rules

hAtom 0.1

This section is more or less closed, as hAtom 0.1 is out the door. If there are open issues that you are championing that didn't make it into hAtom 0.1, move them up above to the hAtom 0.2 section

This page documents the issues that have been raised regarding the hAtom draft during the course of its development, and the resolutions of those issues (often with accompanying opinions).


Contributors

Feed (atom:feed)

RyanKing: STATUS: RESOLVED - 'hfeed' and not required (a la hcalendar)

Initial proposal

atomfeed (or rather, "atom-entry")

Alternatives

The above proposal was not fully accepted and some other possibilities were proposed:

Discussion

The feed is a root class name of hAtom, similar to "vcalendar" in hCalendar, thus it should be fairly unique, per the root class name naming-principles. - Tantek

Entry (atom:entry)

RyanKing: STATUS - RESOLVED - 'hentry'

Initial Proposal

atomentry (or rather, "atom-entry")

Alternatives

The above proposal was not fully accepted. Other alternatives:

Discussion

Entry Title (atom:title)

RyanKing: STATUS - RESOLVED - going with 'entry-title, to be consistent with 'entry-content'

proposals

The title class is defined by hCard to mean "job title". Possible alternatives include (Please add to list):

Discussion

Entry Content (atom:content)

STATUS - RESOLVED going with entry-content


Discussion

Entry Summary (atom:summary)

STATUS - RESOLVED - going with 'entry-summary'

The summary class is defined by vCalendar, iCalendar, hCalendar, and also hReview, to mean "summary or title". Possible alternatives include (add to list):

Discussion

Entry Permalink (atom:link)

STATUS - RESOLVED - 'bookmark'

Discussion

Entry Published (atom:published)

Discussion

Entry Updated (atom:updated)

STATUS - RESOLVED - 'updated'

Discussion

go back throught blog-post-examples to see what conventions we have.

Entry Author (atom:author)

STATUS - RESOLVED - 'author' required, should use <address>

Discussion

Entry Contributor (atom:contributor)

Discussion

Entry Geo (geo:Point)

GeoRSS Resources

Questions and Comments

Limitations

Relationship to hReview definitions needs clarification

[DavidJanes?] hAtom will define terminology for the general act of publication that overlaps with hReview's terminology for the specific act of publishing a review of something. The following terms could be pushed back into hReview:

Tantek: "Pushed back" is the wrong direction here.

The right direction is "re-use" by new proposals/drafts. If you see anything in hReview that appears to overlap this new specification, the first thing to do is to see if you can reuse those terms from hReview in this new specification, not vice versa.

In addition, "published" does not mean the same as "dtreviewed" (you might write a restaurant review just after you eat there, but not actually "publish" it until later). "reviewer" is also a more precise semantic than "author", thus the two should not be collapsed.

hCards

DavidJanes: Should hCards be required for the <address> of the Entry Poster? MAY, MUST, SHOULD? Your thoughts please.

RESOLVED: MUST use hCard for author.

Comparisons

This seems precisely analogous to S5:

I'm all for NOT boiling the ocean, but these really seem like the same cup of tea.

--Ernie Prabhakar

Repeated Elements

We allow certain elements to be repeated, such as Entry Permalink, Entry Published and Entry Title, even though there can be at most one real value. We provide "disambiguation" rules for sorting out which is the real value. See here, here, here and here.

Your thoughts please... -- David Janes

STATUS - RESOLVED. The spec has explicit rules for disambiguating all these items if they appear multiple times.

Opaqueness

If you have concerns about opaqueness, that is, stopping interpretation below certain hAtom elements, raise them here.

Opaqueness of other microformat elements

How would we handle a case where someone wanted to provide a vcard under the class~=entry element for an individual who was neither author or contributor? Consider the hypothetical case where someone wanted to list their "muse" alongside article author and contributors. If this vcard included a title it might be included accidentally as an <atom:title>.

To summarise, Is it possible that other microformats found under the class~=entry or class~=feed elements need to be considered opaque?

-- BenjaminCarlyle

Opaqueness of summary and content

DavidJanes?: What one publisher considers the entry content may differ from another publisher's point of view. Is the content simply a div that does not contain any author/updated/published metadata etc, or could some of that metadata be relevant to the content as well as the entry? Consider updated. last-modified-brainstorming introduces an idea of using <ins> and <del> elements to indicate update time. Updates are also often included in entry content with further information. This suggests to me that the line of opaqueness is blurry.

Perhaps content and summary should not be opaque, and instead rely on the mfo proposal to avoid parsing into microformats below the content level. This approach would allow a single div to contain both "entry" and "content" classes should all metadata be considered content by the author, or would permit any other subset of the metadata to be considered content without repeating one's self.

Consider also the "read more"-style blog. The following nesting of div elements is illegal under current opacity rules: <div class="content"><div class="summary">...</div>...</div>

A further example is provided by _fil_ on #microformats, who uses the rel-tag microformat within his atom:content to be handled as tags in his feed reader.

Identification

The current spec under Schema:Nomenclature:Entry includes the text: "if practical, also define id="unique-identifier" to the Entry" What should be done with this id by parsers? How does this interact (if at all) with the interpretation of a rel=bookmark within the entry?

Also, how should a feed <id> element be filled out from a hAtom source document? Is a rel=bookmark at the feed level required?

The id elements in atom are supposed to survive all future movements of the blog to new hosting arrangements and the like. Are current feed URLs or even rel=bookmarks solid enough?

STATUS - OPEN.

HTML Title

Atom permits title to be either plain text or html. hAtom2Atom.xsl currently uses a plain text translation, and some feed readers seem not to handle html titles well (liferea does not normalize-whitespace, for example). Should a hAtom title element become a plain text or a html atom title? If so, should a subset of html be passed through rather than all html (including id, etc)?

rel-tag

Should hAtom use rel-tag for atom category elements? -- DavidJanes

Excess disambiguation rules?

Disambiguation rules apply to feed and entry title, and hAtom2Atom.xsl implements these. Rules also apply to permalink, published, and updated. These are currently not implemented. If they appear multiple times in the source document they are repeated multiple times.

It is clear that the data relating to these fields may be repeated within a hAtom entry, however the class notation may not. Only one element need be marked with rel="bookmark". Only one need be marked published, and one updated. Should the disambiguation rules be removed and only one element be allowed for each value, or is there value to the publisher in marking different elements with the hAtom class names?

Dependencies

mfo

Does this specification depend on acceptance of a hAtom-compatible mfo? See mfo-examples.

Is atom:content necessary?

Atom's structure is built up around separating content and other metadata. atom:updated, atom:author, and the like are separate from atom:content any may contain repeated data. Microformats are built around bringing the content and the metadata back together. Is there are genuine use case for identifying only part of the atom entry as content? Presumably the whole html entry is fit for human consumption, or it wouldn't be part of a microformatted web page. Could that whole html snippet be used as the content?

Published as default value for atom:updated

It seems to be common practice to include an "updated" section within the main blog content to track updates to an atom:entry as they occur. It is less common to include a value for atom:published within atom:content. atom:published is usually provided by a machine, but atom:updated is often provided by a human.

I suggest that if a value of published exists but no value for updated exists that the required updated field be filled out from the optional published field. I think this would make changing the required value of updated easier for publishers. Also, several updates may occur to a single entry. I suggest that a disambiguation rule be applied such that the the latest timestamp of any updated field be used if several exist. The overal parser semantics would therefore be:

  1. If multiple updated fields exist, choose the most recent one.
  2. If only one updated field exists, choose that value.
  3. If no updated field exists but a published field exists, use the published value for atom:updated.
+ 1 Robert Bachmann

Designating the page author

(2006-02-07 raised by Robert Bachmann)

“[I]f an Entry has 0 Entry Author elements, the "logical Entry Author" is assumed to be the author of the XHTML page”

(2006-02-13 example by Chris Casciano) There is a live case showing this issue at http://chunkysoup.net - The posts are now hatom'd but since I am the only author the individual entries do not repeast the info with each entry. I do have an hcard with my (the page author's) information in the fotter of the page, but at the moment it is not designated via the <address> element due to sematics/content. FWIW, it is also outside of the block designated as the hfeed.

Proposal

Entry Updated Required? -- Blogger

See Also

Template

Please use this format (copy and paste this to the end of the list to add your issues):

hatom-issues was last modified: Wednesday, December 31st, 1969

Views