Subject: draft-ietf-atompub-format-06

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:14 -0500

No I-D announce email yet, for some reason. hmmm.

The editors' read of consensus differed from the chairs' on PaceHeadless 
and PaceExtensionConstruct. The chairs agree that both reads are 
reasonable, and are ok with this divergence.

HTML
http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html

TXT
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.txt

DIFF
http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06-from-5.diff.html

Robert Sayre

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:17:23 +0000

On 16 Mar 2005, at 1:03 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:

> PaceHeadless. The chairs agree that both reads are reasonable, and are 
> ok with this divergence.

The working group aren't. Revert PaceHeadless immediately.

Graham

---

From: Henry Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:29:12 +0100

What's the problem exactly? The spec looks quite nice to me on the 
whole.

((Perfection would come with an OWL semantics as shown by RSS1.1, but 
otherwise it looks
ok.))

Henry Story

On 16 Mar 2005, at 16:17, Graham wrote:

>> PaceHeadless. The chairs agree that both reads are reasonable, and 
>> are ok with this divergence.
>

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:59:16 -0700

4.1.1 "The "atom:feed" element is the document (i.e., top-level) 
element of an Atom Feed Document, acting as a container for metadata 
and data associated with the feed. Its element children consist of one 
or more metadata elements followed by zero or more atom:entry child 
elements."

A little nit-picky, but it looks like a minimum of three metadata 
elements are required: link, title and updated.

4.2.8 The "atom:image" Element

There was some support for the idea of changing the name of atom:image 
to atom:logo.  Is there any opposition to that?

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:13:43 -0500

> The working group aren't. Revert PaceHeadless immediately.

Graham,

I have no desire to contradict the decisions of this WG. I acknowledge 
that there were negative opinions expressed about PaceHeadless. However, 
none of the negative opinions other than your own contained technical 
criticism. Even yours was pretty vague [0,1,2]. Comments in favor were 
generally thoughtful and based on implementation experience.

All of the objections concerned the atom:head text rather than 
extensibility. Rejecting the extensibility text because of editorial 
comments about atom:head is not appropriate. The extensions text in 
atom:head is nearly identical to PaceExtensionConstruct, which Tim 
didn't like because of RDF language, but everyone else approved. The 
current text has no RDF language.

Arguing process is not productive here. Finding out the WG's real view 
is. The editors will gladly revert, change, delete, add etc etc. The 
group needs to tell us what to do.

Robert Sayre

[0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13178.html
[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13415.html
[2] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13458.html

---

From: David Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:42:34 +0000

From draft-06:Atom-Syntax <[email-masked]>

> Any element in an Atom Document MAY have an xml:base attribute.

> Any element in an Atom Document MAY have an xml:lang attribute

Not all XHTML elements can legally carry an xml:lang attribute; and no
XHTML elements can legally carry an xml:base attribute.

Is this obvious or do we need to make it clear that the statements
above do not override the rules of XHTML?

-- 
Dave

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:25:29 -0800

> above do not override the rules of XHTML?

Or maybe what we're really saying is that any *Atom* element may have 
an xml:base/xml:lang?  -Tim

---

From: David Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:32:47 +0000

> an xml:base/xml:lang?  -Tim

Yes, that sounds right.

-- 
Dave

---

From: Joe Gregorio <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:37:22 -0500

> an xml:base/xml:lang?  -Tim

+1 

That's how I initially read it, but I see how the current
wording could be read to allow xml:base/xml:lang on any element
regardless of the namespace the element sits in.

   -joe

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:42:15 +0000

> current text has no RDF language.

 From a purely aesthetic point of view,  we now have one element name 
with a hyphen while the rest are one word. Yuck.

Secondly, whereas before we had two types of head with identical 
syntax, we now have feed and source-feed with different syntax. Double 
yuck.

Thirdly, a lot of the metadata in <head> (or <feed>) does not describe 
the <feed> element, they describe various different subjects:
- This feed document
- The feed in general
- Entry defaults

The <head> element indicated that, like headers in other contexts, this 
is extra data that doesn't have much meaning in itself but may be 
useful in processing the entries. Defining them as metadata belonging 
to <feed> was tottally misguided.

> is.

The WGs view appears to be very clearly "no consensus", which has lead 
to automatic closure of  every other pace recently.

Graham

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:54:44 -0500

Graham wrote:
> Secondly, whereas before we had two types of head with identical syntax, 
> we now have feed and source-feed with different syntax. Double yuck.
> 

The previous text wasn't any better, and had an undefined extension 
point (sibling of entry and head). But this is just aesthetics. RSS2 
does it this way, and it works fine.

> the <feed> element, they describe various different subjects:

I don't think this is a valuable distinction, but maybe other folks will.

> is extra data that doesn't have much meaning in itself but may be useful 
> in processing the entries. Defining them as metadata belonging to <feed> 
> was tottally misguided.
> 

I don't understand this statement. How is tagline or updated not feed 
metadata? Defining "entry defaults" was totally misquided in my opinion, 
but I lost that argument.

> to automatic closure of  every other pace recently.

This is a process argument. The chairs can deal with that.

Robert Sayre