Subject: The atom:uri element

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 14:40:41 +0200

I've mentioned this several times before and haven't had time to follow  
the evolvement of the draft up until now, but as far as I can tell,  
atom:uri is still in place in the specification... Do we really need a  
pace to have that element renamed before the spec goes final?

Or is it so that the atom:uri element have many proponents on the list so  
it can't be renamed or changed to atom:link, atom:email or something  
making more sense? Even atom:iri is better at this point, imho.

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

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 15:15:21 +0200

On Tue, 24 May 2005 14:40:41 +0200, Asbjørn Ulsberg  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> Or is it so that the atom:uri element have many proponents on the list  
> so it can't be renamed or changed to atom:link, atom:email or something  
> [...]
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^
Just so the replies to this e-mail (if any) doesn't get concentrated  
around my little mishap with the elements here: I didn't mean writing  
'atom:email' there since we already have that element. The point I'm  
trying to make is not the name of the element, but rather its type. I'd  
like it to be constructed somewhat similar to atom:link, e.g. be an Atom  
Link Construct.

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 07:20:04 +0200

* Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]> [2005-05-24 14:50]:
> I've mentioned this several times before and haven't had time
> to follow  the evolvement of the draft up until now, but as far
> as I can tell,  atom:uri is still in place in the
> specification... Do we really need a  pace to have that element
> renamed before the spec goes final?

-1 to renaming the element.
See http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13864.html

> Or is it so that the atom:uri element have many proponents on
> the list so  it can't be renamed or changed to atom:link,
> atom:email or something  making more sense? Even atom:iri is
> better at this point, imho.

Is there anything for which atom:uri is insufficient, which can
plausibly not be done in an extension, and for which there is a
pressing need? And if so, how do atom:link semantics apply to
person constructs?

-1 to atom:link. No need for change for the sake of change.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 13:53:05 +0100

-1 to "atom:link" unless they are proper link elements. I'm fairly  
happy with the current situation.

Graham

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:25:04 +0200

On Wed, 25 May 2005 14:53:05 +0200, Graham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> -1 to "atom:link" unless they are proper link elements.

What about atom:author@href, then?

> I'm fairly happy with the current situation.

Okay, but do you agree that the atom:uri element is a bit inconsistent  
with the rest of the format specification?

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 15:17:07 +0100

> What about atom:author@href, then?

No, I want multiple uris. I've just checked the spec and noticed it  
doesn't allow them. Why? Shouldn't I be able to have an http: uri and  
an aim: uri? And couldn't email be a mailto: uri?

+1 to replacing atom:email and atom:uri with multiple real atom:link  
elements (to allow titles).

(I don't care about the rel value)

Graham

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 22:51:40 +0200

On Wed, 25 May 2005 16:17:07 +0200, Graham <[email-masked]> wrote:

> No, I want multiple uris.

Okay, that's a good point.

> And couldn't email be a mailto: uri?

Another good point I think the atom:link element could solve pretty nicely.

> elements (to allow titles).

Yay. +1.

> (I don't care about the rel value)

Me neither, although I feel «alternate» is an a bit awkward value (even  
though it's not alternate to the actual author (no, he's not in the feed  
somewhere ;-), but to the metadata about the author).

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 09:00:59 +1000

>> elements (to allow titles).

+1

that's elegant and clean, and seeing as we're unlikely to be seeing many
feeds with email addresses at all it's no great loss to see a specialised
element fade away.

> somewhere ;-), but to the metadata about the author).

+1 :-)

e.