- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:12:16 +0100
- To: Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt@crschmidt.net>
- Cc: Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>, rss-dev@yahoogroups.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:43:50 -0500, Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt@crschmidt.net> > It may be beneficial to wait until Atom has finished it's current draft > run? Or is .3 widely used enough that implementing a mapping is useful? The only thing that's certain is that 0.3 will not be the final version! If I read things right, this version will be strongly deprecated once 1.0 comes out. The Atom WG charter has format spec last call in March, final in April (same for the protocol/API, btw). Right now if I had any live systems I'd probably hold off changing until Atom 1.0, but would try and work from the current spec draft for offline development (see [1]). Note that material under discussion right now is likely to impact any mapping - the existing extensibility-related proposals are all in focus on the issue list [2], and the chair has called "last orders" on this facet, the result being two new proposals appearing in the past few days: AtomAsRDF [3] (what it says) and PaceExtensionConstruct [4] which offers a more general purpose structural interpretation, though was also prompted by a desire for RDF compatibility. Cheers, Danny. [1] http://ietf.levkowetz.com/drafts/atompub/format/ [2] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomPubIssuesList [3] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomAsRDF [4] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtensionConstruct Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 19 January 2005 15:12:17 UTC