- From: Robert Sayre <mint@franklinmint.fm>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 10:29:11 -0400
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, Jon Hanna <jon@hackcraft.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, atom-syntax@imc.org, Dare Obasanjo <kpako@yahoo.com>
Danny Ayers wrote: > > Ok, could be wrong but I don't think Atom yet has a suitable means of > doing the equivalent of <enclosure>. We call it content @src. MarkN and I are working on incorporating the accepted PaceContentRedux3. That's your "blob" property, remember? > > As has been pointed out, each entry is given a URI, which means RDF > can talk about them. But then that raises the spectre of one (Atom) > feed for content, one (RSS/RDF) for metadata.Or perhaps following the > idea of RDF-as-payload we could have alternating content/metadata > (wierd, but there might be something in it...). It should raise the spectre of independent resources. HTTP works better that way. I'm not "against" RDF at all, and I think it has a good extensibility story. But we don't really need RDF/XML in core. The Atom project, like some versions of RSS, has done a little activity-based planning and found that people like to make lists.[0] Adaptations of Greenspun's Tenth Rule really aren't appropriate here. Atom does not fear the other. Can we stop the crossposting now? Robert Sayre [0] (search for "activity-based planning") http://www.joelonsoftware.com/printerFriendly/uibook/chapters/fog0000000065.html
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 14:29:26 UTC