[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Atom Comments Extension
* James M Snell <jasnell@xxxxxxxxx> [2005-09-08 06:45]:
> If anyone has any further comments on the draft, please let me
I am alarmed that this draft does *not even once* explicitly
mention the fact that idrefs are expected to be derived from Atom
Entry IDs. No particular interpretation of @idref’s content is
prescribed at all.
I think this is a terrible mistake.
If consumers cannot have a uniform expectation of the meaning of
the @idref value, there is no way for an Atom producer to know
how to express a particular notion. I am uncomfortably reminded
of RSS. If we do want consumers to have a uniform expectation of
the meaning of such a value, then people who decide to stick
something else in there will fail to interoperate with the
majority of consumers.
In other words, this is an obvious case for a SHOULD-level
So, I believe the draft as it stands is seriously lacking because
it misses one crucial sentence in the section 3 paragraph that
deals with inReplyToNonDereferenceable.
As to *what* the SHOULD-level requirement should be, I think
there will be little argument that the ID of an Atom Entry is it.
This would mean inReplyToNonDereferenceable is mainly reserved
for replies to Atom Entries, and replies to other types of
entities are relegated to inReplyToDereferenceable. I believe it
is sensible to legislate this segregation further by saying that
inReplyToDereferenceable SHOULD NOT be used to reply to entities
which have an Atom Entry representation.
PS.: a minor editorial niggle:
> [2. Notational Conventions]
> In this specification, "head section" refers to the children
> of a feed's document-wide metadata container; e.g., the
> child elements of the atom:feed element in an Atom Feed
I believe this sentence should end with “other than atom:entry”
to remove any ambiguity.
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>