[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

<comment> notes

Anatoly Vorobey <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Since yesterday there's more than a million active Atom 0.3 feeds at
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/[username]/data/atom . They should
> all conform to the latest 0.3 draft. Anyone is welcome to use them,
> and if you find any problem with their compliance or any suggestions
> for improvement, please drop me a line.


In looking at some feeds I notice that all the <content>s are the
first N characters of the post.

A couple of things, mostly orthogonal and spec related, not particular
to the LJ feeds:

1) the 0.3 draft is missing the @rel attribute for <content>.
   content's @rel has been on the wiki forever and I recall it was
   pointed out after an earlier draft

   1a) the LJ feeds have rel="fragment", which is correct in that it
   means "this is not a complete entity resource" (which would mean
   <head> or <body> in an Atom archive of a standalone web page, for
   example), but may really have been used to incorrectly per:

2) the LJ feeds are using <content> where it seems they should be
   using <summary>

3) these summaries are a) system-generated, not human-written; b)
   excerpts, as opposed to a summarization, abstract, or paraphrase.
   I think those are important distinctions.  Possible @rel's might be
   "excerpt", "startswith", in contrast to "abstract" or the light
   hearted, "epigraph".

4) in Mark Nottingham's notes on the 0.3 draft[1], he suggests
   treating Content structures more like <link>, in that there's only
   one <content>, with well-known attributes, and using different @rel
   attributes to indicate what the content is for (body content,
   summary, copyright, title, etc.).  Food for thought, and an
   alternative to (2).

   4a) note that when SSFF is used, consumers will treat all feed
       content as "advisory", and defer to the entry URI for full


  -- Ken

[1] http://www.mnot.net/blog/2003/12/12/notes_on_atom