hatom-issues-pre-0.1

Revision as of 11:00, 14 January 2008 by AndyMabbett (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

hAtom pre 0.1 issues

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

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)

STATUS - RESOLVED TENTATIVE - 'updated'

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


Template

Consider using this format (copy and paste this to the end of the list to add your issues; replace ~~~ with an external link if preferred) to report issues or feedback, so that issues can show up in hAtom subscriptions of this issues page. If open issues lack this markup, please add it.

Please post one issue per entry, to make them easier to manage. Avoid combining multiple issues into single reports, as this can confuse or muddle feedback, and puts a burden of separating the discrete issues onto someone else who 1. may not have the time, and 2. may not understand the issue in the same way as the original reporter.

<div class="hentry">
{{OpenIssue}} 
<span class="entry-summary author vcard">
 <span class="published">2011-MM-DD</span> 
 raised by <span class="fn">~~~</span>
</span>
<div class="entry-content discussion issues">
* <strong class="entry-title">«Short title of issue»</strong>. «Description of Issue»
** Follow-up comment #1
** Follow-up comment #2
</div>
</div>

See Also

hatom-issues-pre-0.1 was last modified: Wednesday, December 31st, 1969

Views