Subject: Rough consensus on PaceElementOrder?

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 10:41:04 -0700

I think that we are approaching rough consensus on PaceElementOrder, 
like so:

1. I think we clearly have consensus that the feed-level elements 
should all appear before the <atom:entry> elements.

2. I think we have probably have good-enough rough consensus that it's 
worthwhile grouping all the non-entry stuff in an <atom:feedinfo> or 
some such, so that the content model for <atom:feed> is something like

   atom:feedinfo, atom:entry*

The cost of doing this seems effectively zero and there are some 
detectable advantages.

3. There has been some discussion around the notion that there are some 
feed-level things that are really mostly about providing defaults for 
the <atom:entries>, with the consequent suggestion that maybe they 
deserve their own top-level element, with further digressions into 
doing defaulting by reference rather than by inheritance.  I do not 
detect consensus in these discussions (in fact I'm not convinced that 
it's been demonstrated that there things that are have pure 
entry-default as opposed to feed-metadata semantics).

SO: I propose that rather than tear this one apart any further, we ask 
the editors to, in the -01 drafts, recast the data format with the 
<atom:feedinfo> element (anyone should feel free to suggest a better 
name than "feedinfo"), and that those who care about defaulting cook up 
a Pace or three outlining specifically what the options are.  -Tim

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 04:04:39 +1000

> a Pace or three outlining specifically what the options are.  -Tim

+1

---

From: Norman Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:08:43 -0400

/ Tim Bray <[email-masked]> was heard to say:
| SO: I propose that rather than tear this one apart any further, we ask
| the editors to, in the -01 drafts, recast the data format with the
| <atom:feedinfo> element (anyone should feel free to suggest a better
| name than "feedinfo"), and that those who care about defaulting cook
| up a Pace or three outlining specifically what the options are.  -Tim

+1, with the suggestions of atom:head or atom:info.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <[email-masked]> | Man is the only animal who causes pain
http://nwalsh.com/            | to others with no other object than
                              | wanting to do so.-- Schopenhauer

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 14:46:18 -0700

Sounds like a plan. I'm not crazy about "feedinfo", but can't think of 
something to replace it.

On Jul 12, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Tim Bray wrote:

> 3. There has been some discussion around the notion that there are 
> some feed-level things that are really mostly about providing defaults 
> for the <atom:entries>, with the consequent suggestion that maybe they 
> name than "feedinfo"), and that those who care about defaulting cook 
> up a Pace or three outlining specifically what the options are.  -Tim
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Don Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 15:21:20 -0700

Another option is:

<atom>
  <feed/>*
  <entry/>*
</atom>

If feed/entry relationship is not implcit, then each entry could 
explicitly point to zero or more feeds.

Don

Mark Nottingham wrote:

>> 2. I think we have probably have good-enough rough consensus that 
>> it's worthwhile grouping all the non-entry stuff in an 
>> <atom:feedinfo> or some such, so that the content model for 
>> <atom:feed> is something like
>>
>> some feed-level things that are really mostly about providing 
>> defaults for the <atom:entries>, with the consequent suggestion that 
>> maybe they deserve their own top-level element, with further 
>> digressions into doing defaulting by reference rather than by 
>> inheritance.  I do not detect consensus in these discussions (in fact 
>> I'm not convinced that it's been demonstrated that there things that 
>> are have pure entry-default as opposed to feed-metadata semantics).
>>
>> SO: I propose that rather than tear this one apart any further, we 
>> ask the editors to, in the -01 drafts, recast the data format with 
>> the <atom:feedinfo> element (anyone should feel free to suggest a 
>> better name than "feedinfo"), and that those who care about 
>> defaulting cook up a Pace or three outlining specifically what the 
>> options are.  -Tim
>>
>
> --