Re: [Widgets] Widget Gallery RSS like sharing format

How about adopting OpenSearch response?

http://www.opensearch.org/Specifications/OpenSearch/1.1#OpenSearch_response_elements

In fact, how about simply adopting OpenSearch in its entirety?

Jon




                                                                           
             Robin Berjon                                                  
             <robin@berjon.com                                             
             >                                                          To 
             Sent by:                  SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS          
             public-webapps-re         <benoit.suzanne@orange-ftgroup.com> 
             quest@w3.org                                               cc 
                                       <public-webapps@w3.org>             
                                                                   Subject 
             03/11/2009 08:10          Re: [Widgets] Widget Gallery RSS    
             AM                        like sharing format                 
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




On Mar 11, 2009, at 14:14 , SUZANNE Benoit RD-SIRP-ISS wrote:
> I do not consider the following as a formal format proposition but
> as an input to open the discussion as it should probably be written
> in atom instead of RSS.

Yes, and it should introduce as few new elements as possible. Off the
top of my head:

<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
  <title>Cool Widgets</title>
  <subtitle>For Your Phone</subtitle>
  <link href="http://example.org/widgets/feed" rel="self"/>
  <link href="http://example.org/widgets/"/>
  <updated>1997-03-15T00:05:42Z</updated>
  <author>
    <name>Kjetil Dahut</name>
    <email>kd@example.com</email>
  </author>
  <id>urn:uuid:60a76c80-d399-11d9-b91C-0003939e0af6</id>

  <entry>
    <title>W3C LC Comment Generator</title>
    <link rel="enclosure" href="http://example.org/1997/03/15/
lcgen.wgt" type='application/widget'/>
    <link rel="alternate" href="
http://example.org/1997/03/15/about-lcgen.html
"/>
    <link rel="http://w3.org/rel/screenshot" href="
http://example.org/1997/03/15/lcgen01.jpg.
"/>
    <id>http://example.org/1997/03/15/lcgen.wgt</id>
    <updated>1997-03-15T00:05:42Z</updated>
    <summary>To make handling those pesky groups easier.</summary>
    <category term='web' label='Web Tools'/>
    <author><name>BjörnH</name></author>
  </entry>
</feed>

Of note:
   - the only extension to the base format is minting a new rel IRI
for screenshots;
   - I don't think we want anything describing the platform, this is
for W3C Widgets (and platform description would need something more
powerful than just a string anyway);
   - category as a number is meaningless to users, using a tag plus a
label is probably better;
   - I don't see the use case for including a version here (that's for
the Update spec);
   - I'm not convinced that there is strong value in supporting
download statistics and ratings;
   - there is probably some variant on the @rel that might have better
semantics;
   - language has to be an ISO code.

--
Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/:
     Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/