[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Change Proposal to HTML WG to *remove* the algorithm for generating Atom feeds from HTML content
I submitted a 2nd change proposal, asking for removal of the whole section.
Feedback from members of the Atom community would be appreciated, simply
send email to the WG mailing list
(<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/>) or the public
comments mailing list
Best regards, Julian
On 09.04.2010 16:04, Julian Reschke wrote:
On 08.04.2010 20:12, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
On Apr 8, 2010, at 5:09 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Also, it's not clear *at all* whether this is a feature that people
really want, and if they do, whether it needs to be part of HTML5.
Given the fact that it's non-trivial to generate a valid Atom feed
from HTML, but the reverse *is* trivial, we should also consider
removing this feature altogether (I'd be happy to write a 2nd change
proposal if people want to see that as well). (See )
Since a number of people have expressed interest, I think it would be
helpful to provide a second proposal along these lines.
Sure. Here it is:
The HTML5 spec contains an algorithm for producing an Atom (RFC4287)
feed document from an HTML page.
There are many problems with this, summarized under RATIONALE.
This Change Proposal removes the complete section defining this algorithm.
The are multiple problems with the algorithm for Atom generation:
1) It's not clear that a sufficient amount of people is interested in
this. HTML pages that would be candidates for this usually are generated
from a different source, like an article database, or even a feed
document. Therefore, providing both simply is not a problem for the
author. Defining a feature that is of little use increases the spec size
(more to review) and the risk of getting things wrong because of poor
review (see below).
2) Defining a mapping between both formats *is* interesting. Other
parties have done it before. This is even mentioned in HTML5. There's no
reason why another variant of this needs to be in HTML5.
3) The mapping as currently specified contradicts the Atom specification
(RFC 4287) in several aspects. If this Change Proposal does not get
applied, the individual problems with the mapping still will need to be
fixed. There's a separate Change Proposal () which is focused on
fixing some of these issues.
Remove all of 4.15.1 ("Atom"). Also remove 4.15 ("Converting HTML to
other formats"), which otherwise would be empty.
Note: the removal of this part should be applied to all variants of the
spec, be it in W3C space or not. Otherwise, the algorithm will need
proper review, and I'd recommend to encourage the members of the
atom-syntax mailing list to do that.
1. Positive Effects
Removal of spec text which is believed to be non-essential,
controversial, in contradiction with other applicable specs, and
2. Negative Effects
3. Conformance Classes Changes
None (there was non requirement to implement this anyway).