Subject: Comment on Format Spec: link

From: Brett Lindsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:03:20 -0500

In working with the Atom Format spec, Sec 5.2 indicates that an atom:link
element MUST be present in an atom:entry. My question is if the entry
also has an atom:content element, then why MUST link be present? If we
alrady have the content in the entry, why do we need the link.

I can think of some situations where the content does not actually exist on
the issuing server but it does exist in the feed entry. For example,
if I create a feed that generates up to date weather information, the 
feed may
be dynamically generated. The weather information is placed into elements
but there is no formal entry created on the server for this snapshot of 
information.
In this case, the entry has the relevant information in the content although
the link would not point to anything valid.

My proposal would be that the atom:link would be optional if the 
atom:content
element is present.

Brett, Motorola Labs

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 18:07:04 -0400

Brett Lindsley wrote:
> atom:content element is present.

Care to write up a proposal?

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/HowToGetInvolved

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 20:12:17 +0200

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 10:03:20 -0500, Brett Lindsley  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> element MUST be present in an atom:entry.

I thought it was consensus that this was going to be a SHOULD? What  
happened?

> My question is if the entry also has an atom:content element, then why
> MUST link be present?

Good question. As I wrote, I thought the final consensus (after weeks of  
debating) was that <link re="alternate"> SHOULD be present, but not MUST.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg    -=|=-     http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:38:51 -0400

Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> Good question. As I wrote, I thought the final consensus (after weeks 
> of  debating) was that <link re="alternate"> SHOULD be present, but not 
> MUST.

Asbjørn, the first step towards getting the spec to change is to write 
up a Pace.  I am a stickler for process, and this is precisely the 
reason why.  Just because somebody remembers how they thought the 
discussion seemed to be leaning at some point when they were looking 
does not magically make it so.

Please take a moment to review the set of current Paces, and on the list 
of places where there is a declared consensus by Tim or Paul on the 
mailing list.  Suggestion: scan for subject lines of the form:

   Work Queue Rotation #n
   New AtomPubIssuesList for 2004/mm/dd

I am strongly opposed to heading towards a path where everything is 
optional and everything is extensible as that does not lead to 
predictable interoperability.

For that reason, I am opposed to making alternate link completely 
optional.  However, I would be willing to compromise along the lines 
that Brett is suggesting, i.e., making the alternate link optional (we 
can discuss further whether it is a SHOULD or a MAY)

But, again, the way to get the spec to change is to write up a Pace.

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 21:37:05 +0200

* Sam Ruby wrote:
>optional.

Which mandatory operations common to all Atom implementations cannot be
performed if such an alternate link is missing or in which way might a
missing alternate link cause actual harm? What will Atom implementations
be required to do when they encounter a missing alternate link? It seems
that it does not affect interoperability at all. The audience of the
Atom document might be limited if alternate links are not provided, but
how is that relevant? An Atom implementation that expects only german
Atom documents does not interoperate predictably with non-german Atom
documents, it follows that limiting Atom to german content leads to
predictable interoperability, which would mean you are opposed to allow
any language but german in Atom, that does not make much sense to me.

---

From: Dare Obasanjo <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 13:01:15 -0700 (PDT)

> can discuss further whether it is a SHOULD or a MAY)

Is this a contradiction? You are opposed to making it
completely optional but will compromise along the
lines of making it optional? 
 
> But, again, the way to get the spec to change is to

If anyone writes this up you can count me as a
supporter. 

=====
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #23
I will keep a special cache of low-tech weapons and train my troops in their use. That way -- even if the heroes manage to neutralize my power generator and/or render the standard-issue energy weapons useless -- my troops will not be overrun by a handful of savages armed with spears and rocks.

_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 14:28:02 -0700

On Sep 25, 2004, at 11:38 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> up a Pace.

I agree with Asbjørn and Sam.  That is to say, I think we probably have 
consensus for making the <link> optional, but to get it in the spec we 
have to have a Pace.  Because what matters isn't what we mean, it's 
what the spec says. -Tim