Subject: Blogging specific Options: Extended Text,Convert Line Breaks...

From: Toru Marumoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:19:12 +0900

I joined the list a few month ago, so I might have missed important issues.
Plese forgive me if I'm posting about a old duplicated issue. 

I'm a developer of BlogWrite (a japanese Blogging client) which supports
XML-RPC APIs and the Atom. There is a need for Atom to support
"Extended Text(text_more)","Convert Line Breaks", and TrackBack just like a
XML-RPC API do now. I understand Atom is not just for Blogging, but Atom is
widely used for Blogging already. 

Now I'm wondering if I should create a new namespace and some tags for those 
Blogging specific features and extend Atom. But, of course, I don't want to
reinvent a wheel...

So, does anyone know if any of those features is already exists or planned in
the Atom? if not, why not make tags for them?

Thanks 

PS.
I don't wanna be greedy, but it would be so nice if there were options like
"allow comments","allow pings", "public/draft". Why? 'Cause I want to replace 
all XML-RPC APIs with Atom!
BTW, Categories are OK, SixApart's way works fine for me.

Toru Marumoto
     see you on the web!
--------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
http://bb.yahoo.co.jp/

---

From: Jonas Galvez <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 03:04:49 -0300

Toru Marumoto wrote:
> I'm a developer of BlogWrite (a japanese Blogging client) which 
> supports XML-RPC APIs and the Atom. There is a need for Atom to 
> support "Extended Text(text_more)","Convert Line Breaks", and 
> TrackBack just like a XML-RPC API do now. I understand Atom is not 
> just for Blogging, but Atom is widely used for Blogging already.
> 
> Now I'm wondering if I should create a new namespace and some tags  
> for those Blogging specific features and extend Atom. But, of course, 
> I don't want to reinvent a wheel...

Yes, you should look forward extending it through namespaces. Here's a 
nice primer on the Atom API which shows some useful examples:

http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/10/15/dive.html?page=2

     POST /myblog/atom.cgi HTTP/1.1
     Host: example.com
     Content-Type: application/x.atom+xml

     <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
     <entry
       xmlns="http://purl.org/atom/ns#"
       xmlns:mt="http://www.movabletype.org/atom/ns#">

       <title>My Entry Title</title>
       <created>2003-11-17T12:29:29Z</created>
       <mt:allowComments>1</mt:allowComments>
       [...]

It's really that simple. Note that the Content-Type should now be 
application/atom+xml and not application/x.atom+xml.

\\ jonas galvez
// jonasgalvez.com

---

From: Toru Marumoto <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:16:17 +0900

>http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2003/10/15/dive.html?page=2
...
Right...I've read this one before (and forgot).
Thanks a lot for the example.

>It's really that simple. 
Yes, but it's not easy to make it "standard" by one person..
My understanding is that the example is not yet implemented in MT.
Or maybe is?
I can't check it because MT3's Atom implementation has got a bug.

http://www.movabletype.org/support/index.php?act=ST&f=29&t=41904&s=
480ccec46c84af01c0459d7e655bda7b

And there seems to be no documentation about MT3's Atom implementation
available on the web.

Does anyone know that the Atom entry in MT is already extended using
a namespace?

Thanks

Toru Marumoto
     see you on the web!

---

From: Jonas Galvez <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 04:52:05 -0300

> Yes, but it's not easy to make it "standard" by one person..

No matter how common some of these elements may be, I think they should
be seen as application-specific. Even if we standardize them in a manner
that would be acceptable to all implementors, we could still be adding
constraints to possible extensions.

But yes, trying to see it from the perspective of a developer who wants
to offer these features while mantaining compatibility with differently
extended implementations of the API, some sort of standardization
wouldn't hurt.

It's a tough one, at least for me. I'm sure this has already been
discussed before, and there must be a very good reason for not letting
these kinds of elements go into the spec.

I hope someone has the patience to post a brief clarification.

> Does anyone know that the Atom entry in MT is already extended using 

I don't know, but there are a few MT developers on this list. I hope
they can answer it.

\\ jonas galvez
// jonasgalvez.com