Re: TrackbackEntryExample, CommentsAreEntries

[Sam Ruby <rubys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert Sayre wrote:

> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/TrackbackEntryExample
> http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/CommentsAreEntries
>
> Is there consensus on the issue of Atom comments/trackbacks as entries?
> Modeling them as entries makes sense to me, but I couldn't find any list
> discussion on the matter.
>
> If the consensus is that they are to be entry elements at the same level of
> nesting as author generated entries, are they part of the Atom spec or an
> extension?

I don't believe that there is consensus yet (or even much in the way of 
discussion, for that matter), but let me toss the following into the 
discussion:

http://feeds.archive.org/validator/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.intertwingly.net%2Fblog%2Fcomments.atom

At the present time, the validator reports five errors:

1) id must be a full and valid URL - I personally think that this should 
be allowed to be relative to xml:base, and we seem to be near to 
consensus on that issue.

2) ipaddr, method, and title - these are elements that are specific to 
my weblog, and therefore should be an intertwingly specific namespace.

3) name - trackbacks do not have this information, yet this is a 
required child element of author.

- Sam Ruby