Re: Atom 0.2 feedback

[Joe English <jenglish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Bray wrote:
>
> I'm drafting a RelaxNG schema for the 0.2 snapshot, which forces you to
> really think about it carefully.

Thanks!

(I'm probably in the minority on this, but without a grammar
I find it really hard to understand the "shape" of the
document type.  Your work reverse-engineering a schema is
much appreciated.)


> Since <summary> doesn't allow markup, I can't do any styling
> there, right?  So is it OK to put my teaser in <content>, which does
> allow this, or is the semantic of <content> that the content must be
> complete?  At ongoing, if the <description> in the RSS is *not* the full
> text of the entry, I signal this with a trailing "...".  If we are going
> to allow non-complete <content> elements should this be made explicit
> with a full=(yes|no) attribute?

A better solution would be to just give <summary> the
same content model as <content>.

Compare:

    summary -- a brief summary of the entry (optional)
    content -- the full content of the entry (optional)

with:

    summary -- a brief summary of the entry (optional)
    content -- the full content of the entry, if @full=yes
    	is specified or there is no '@full' attribute.  Otherwise,
	if there is no 'summary' element and (and/or?) '@full=no'
	is specified, a brief summary of the entry.

Ick!  This is just like the <guid>/<link> problem in RSS 2.0.
Please don't go that route.


> Put another way, it seems wrong that the ability to style/markup is
> coupled to whether or not you want to provide complete content.

Agreed.


--Joe English

  jenglish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx