Subject: Re: draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-01.txt

From: "Byrne Reese" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:19:48 -0400

Six Apart is looking to develop an experimental implementation of the
Feed Thread extension for Atom. However, I have a few questions:

I see this extension as a logical place to list all feedback (both
comments and trackbacks). However, I don't see a way for the extension
to differentiate between the two types of feedback an entry may receive.
Does anyone know of a way to achieve that?

Byrne Reese

Manager, Platform Technology

http://www.sixapart.com/pronet/

---

From: Thomas Broyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:31:36 +0200

Byrne Reese wrote:
> I see this extension as a logical place to list all feedback (both comments and trackbacks). However, I don’t see a way for the extension to differentiate between the two types of feedback an entry may receive. Does anyone know of a way to achieve that?
I'd say that

« If a comment uses an atom:link[@rel="alternate"] or an 
atom:content[@src], it is considered a "remote comment" (similar to 
trackback/postback). If using atom:link to link to the remote resource, 
the content might be included in atom:content as well. Remote comments 
should provide an atom:summary.
If a comment has no atom:link[@rel="alternate"] and no 
atom:content/@src, it is a "local comment" (comment added on an entry, 
similar to "comment submission HTML forms"). Local comments must use 
atom:content and shouldn't use atom:summary. »

(see http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01384.html for the 
complete discussion)

-- 
Thomas Broyer

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 12:41:30 -0700

Thomas Broyer wrote:

>> comments and trackbacks). However, I don’t see a way for the 
>> extension to differentiate between the two types of feedback an entry 
>> may receive. Does anyone know of a way to achieve that?
>
> I'd say that
>
> trackback/postback). If using atom:link to link to the remote 
> resource, the content might be included in atom:content as well. 
> Remote comments should provide an atom:summary.
> (see http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01384.html for 
> the complete discussion)
>
+1