Subject: Re: The atom:uri element

From: James Cerra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 21:34:11 -0700 (PDT)

> > 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  

I agree with this.  I thought it was unusual to name a tag after a specific
technology rather than its intent (atom:email is an exception).  In this
instance, I think atom:name, atom:resource, or atom:link works better.

> 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.

Good point.  I like the idea of adopting atom:link if several identifiers per
person is allowed.  Or what about an "href" or "ref" attribute on the author
element, if only one indentifier is intended per author?  Or an "about" or
"res" attribute if the uri isn't intended to be dereferenceable?  Just
brainstorming some alternatives.

-- Jimmy Cerra

__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Make Yahoo! your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 14:45:29 +1000

> instance, I think atom:name, atom:resource, or atom:link works better.

+1 atom:link

e.

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 10:57:15 +0200

On Wed, 25 May 2005 06:45:29 +0200, Eric Scheid  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> In this instance, I think atom:name, atom:resource, or atom:link works  
>> better.
>
> +1 atom:link

I think atom:author@href works even better. Thinking of what information  
is stored in atom:uri and how it is used, why isn't it just an attribute?  
It's a single value intended for computers, not humans, to parse.

The atom:uri element does not have a 'title' attribute or anything else  
that makes it necessary to keep it as an element, the actual name of the  
element is awkward in this context and it is not consistent with the rest  
of the specification to have URI's as text nodes of elements but rather as  
attribute values (of @src and @href attributes respectively).

Consistency makes the format easier to understand and learn. Isn't that  
something worth stribing (and thus changing) for?

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

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 19:54:06 +1000

> something worth stribing (and thus changing) for?

+1

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 01:11:08 +1000

>> instance, I think atom:name, atom:resource, or atom:link works better.

doh! I was thinking "link" vs "web" vs "any-damn-name" ... totally forgot we
already have an element named "link".

so ... 

-1 atom:link which is not a Link Construct
+1 atom:link which is a Link Construct
+1 renaming atom:uri to something semantic instead of some data type
+0.5 to making it an attribute, just as we have with atom:generator
-1 to leaving it as it is

(yes, yes, I know we don't have Link Construct in the spec any more)

e.