Subject: PaceIntrospection: @title vs. <title>

From: Ken MacLeod <[email-masked]>
Date: 02 Jul 2004 15:41:55 -0500

PaceIntrospection's <site> has a title attribute following the pattern
of a <link> element rather than a <title> element following the
pattern of the <Feed> and <entry> elements.

Since <site> seems more like a metadata container similar to <feed>
and <entry> (as discussed more strongly in the "new file format"
thread), I propose changing @title to <title>.

  -- Ken

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 23:56:52 +0200

> thread), I propose changing @title to <title>.

+1. <title> instead of @title -- although it's probably not intended --  
actually adheres better to the SyntaxGuidelines as well. ;)

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Dan Brickley <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 18:29:33 -0400

* Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]> [2004-07-02 23:56+0200]
> actually adheres better to the SyntaxGuidelines as well. ;)

+1 

(has markup in titles been discussed to death already? am thinking of 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-ruby-20010531/ for example).

Dan

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 02:21:40 +0200

> http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-ruby-20010531/ for example).

Currently, <title>[1] is defined as a Content Construct[2], which can  
contain markup when the correct @mode and @type is provided. This is very  
likely to change in the near future, though, due to the wide consensus on  
simplifying the <content> model. This simplification will have  
consequences for all Content Constructs, I'd presume.

____
[1] <url:  
http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-atom-format-02.html#rfc.section.4.13.1>
[2] <url:  
http://www.mnot.net/drafts/draft-nottingham-atom-format-02.html#rfc.section.3.1>