David Janes -- BlogMatrix
davidjanes at blogmatrix.com
Tue Oct 25 15:22:59 PDT 2005
Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:
> I have a semi-philosophical question: is the goal merely to transcribe
> atom, or really to provide a generic container format that happens to
> be atom-compatible?
> When looking at your hatom proposal, it seem eerily similar to S5:
> atomentry <-> slide
> content <-> slidecontent
> summary <-> handout
> I'm all for NOT boiling the ocean, but these really seem like the same
> cup of tea.
> The only concrete suggestion is simply to drop "atom" from the names,
> so we can reuse it more generically.
> Does that seem plausible?
META POINT: please add your questions to the Wiki  so *I don't have
to*. This is taking me tens of hours to do and every timesaver helps!
As a set of goals for hAtom, off the top of my head
(1) to provide a blog-post microformat, based on how people actually
(2) based on (1), use Atom as it provides the most suitable data model
for doing so
(3) based on (2), to make the format useful anywhere Atom might be used
in context to create a syndication feed
And my anti-goal:
(1) _not_ to tell people how to write blogs or what there blog should
look like; hAtom marked up blogs should look and behave _identically_ to
what they before hAtom was applied
The reason "atom" is used as prefix in certain contexts is covered in .
Everything that has
(a) a title
(b) a link
is going to look similar ... sometimes eerily so! This does not mean
they're really related. I have mentioned this several times over the
last several weeks, but read  _carefully_ to understand why a generic
concept of "content" will _not_ work for marking up blog content
More information about the microformats-discuss