- From: Martin Atkins <mart@degeneration.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 09:04:05 -0800
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: activity-streams@googlegroups.com, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, "atommedia@googlegroups.com" <atommedia@googlegroups.com>, Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, www-archive <www-archive@w3.org>
Danny, As the original author of AtomMedia I can speak to my main motivation for using it rather than MediaRSS: AtomMedia uses the hyperlink mechanism already built in to Atom, which has the immediate benefit of being compatible with generic Atom clients which know to hunt for link rel="enclosure" without having to duplicate that information in media:content. It was originally penned at a time where there was less use of MediaRSS in Atom, when I felt that a more Atom-shaped extension might feel more at home in an Atom feed. By being simpler I hoped to encourage more consistency and thus simpler parsing compared to the various different ways MediaRSS provides of saying the same thing. It could be argued that since then adoption of MediaRSS as an Atom extension has increased to the point where consumers would now be required to support both, and so these points are moot. To address Mark Nottingham's earlier point, media:description was added to match the media:description in MediaRSS. It is possible that in Atom land Atom's own "summary" element could serve that purpose. Danny Ayers wrote: > On 17 February 2010 23:24, Chris Messina <chris.messina@gmail.com> wrote: >> Largely because MediaRSS is overspecified, no longer actively maintained, >> and a bit crufty. > > I don't wish to be too critical, getting thing to work is obviously > the priority. But I'd like to find out why it was felt that > reinvention was preferred over reuse. > Overspecified shouldn't be a problem, nor cruftiness, maintenance is a > good point. > >> You can use MediaRSS with ActivityStreams if you want (it's just another >> namespace) but we wanted to limit requiring support for all the additional >> metadata that MediaRSS specifies. > > It's maybe just me coming from an RDF-oriented place, but I don't see > why you can't just cherry-pick the terms that are useful, ignore the > rest. > >> There is intentionally an overlap in terms — as AtomMedia should look >> familiar to anyone who's worked with MediaRSS. In some ways, AtomMedia is >> almost more like a pared down profile of MediaRSS, designed to work in Atom >> feeds. > > Tell me Chris, are there political reasons not to use (Yahoo!) > MediaRSS - perfectly understandable if so, but technically I see no > reason for not favouring reuse. > > Again from the RDF world you can say <this:enclosure> > <owl:sameClassAs> <that:enclosure> - but it does mean the writing of > another query, another XSLT... > > What would the Dalai Lama do? > > Cheers, > Danny. > > >
Received on Thursday, 18 February 2010 17:04:46 UTC