- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 10:45:22 +0200
- To: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>
- CC: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "public-html@w3.org WG" <public-html@w3.org>
On 14.04.2010 23:09, Sam Ruby wrote: > ... > Speaking only as a member of the Atom community: the notion of defining > one not only seems harmless, it actually is (mildly) appealing. That > being said, what is currently in the draft specification is actively > harmful. It is my hope that any browser vendor strongly consider the > input of the Atom community before implementing what is currently spec'ed. > >> In which case I recommend that you seek the feedback of the Atom >> community, and fix potential bugs in the spec (such as thise described >> in my first change proposal, but there may be more). > > If there is a consensus to fix these and other bugs, then I would > support an Atom mapping remaining in the W3C HTML5 spec. > ... In that case, I'd really like to see a discussion on the questions below: - What is the use case? News sources that don't want to publish separate feeds? If they do already, what is the problem with that? Why would they want to stop? - Who is supposed to implement this? Browsers? Feed readers? (are they supposed to start consuming HTML5 in *addition* to the various things called "RSS" and Atom?) - Why does this need to be part of HTML5? Why does this need to be a W3C activity anyway? - What are potential alternatives? RDFa, Microformats (hAtom) and Microdata come to mind. So yes, having a bijective mapping between a certain subset of HTML and another subset Atom is an interesting thing to think of, but it's totally *not* clear whether it's something that needs to be done here. Best regards, Julian
Received on Thursday, 15 April 2010 08:46:02 UTC