Re: ISSUE 86 and removing atom transform section - focusing

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 5:08 AM, Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de> wrote:
> On 17.04.2010 11:43, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
>>
>> On Apr 17, 2010, at 2:40 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the meantime I posted about more problems with the algorithm and
>>> didn't get any feedback
>>> (<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-html/2010Apr/0500.html).
>>> Do I need to open a new bug?
>>
>> If you want to be guaranteed a reply, then yes. Ideally more than one
>> bug if you are reporting multiple problems. Or you could wait to see if
>> the algorithm gets removed, in which case any such bugs would presumably
>> be redundant.
>
> The bug will be continue to be relevant if the algorithm isn't removed from
> that "other" spec as well. It won't just be relevant to the HTML WG anymore,
> true.
>
> Best regards, Julian
>


One thing I hope isn't lost in all of this discussion about splitting
off into a separate spec, or inclusion in WhatWG is Steven Roussey's
very pertinent point: we really shouldn't be encouraging people to use
web pages as feeds.

There's hardly a site that doesn't use Google Analytics, I can't image
what the traffic a feed reader would have on the page. Then there's
the other issues related to all that extraneous stuff in a web page
that's not necessary to feed, but still takes up bandwidth as the
reader picks through the material, figuring out what to load, and what
not to load. I suppose the reader could be intelligent enough not to
actually fetch irrelevant material, but let's face it: there's not
much intelligence to scraping a web page for a feed, rather than use
the feed.

Let's also talk about those tiny, few instances where a web site
doesn't provide a feed. I'm assuming if they don't want to provide a
feed, they're also not going to be interested enough to do whatever is
necessary to their web page to make it ... feadable, I guess would be
the word.

I believe we're solving a problem that doesn't exist with this HTML to
Atom mapping. And if there really is a burning need for this mapping,
we've had mappings between other data formats in the past. They
typically happen outside of whatever specs are involved. They're more
of a courtesy, or interesting technical challenge, than a requirement.
 Not unless there's a demonstrative and significant demand for the
mapping from the using community.

Shelley

Received on Saturday, 17 April 2010 12:48:38 UTC