Re: Atom to W3C discussions

Chris Croome wrote:

> Hi
>
> On Thu 13-May-2004 at 09:22:56PM -0400, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>
> > My personal take (well, part of it). RSS1.0 pretty much does it
> > for me, format-wise. There are a few bugs to fix, but technically
> > it does the business. 
>
> Same here, I wonder if we should move RSS 1.0 over to the W3C and in
> this process get the bugs fixed?
As a format, RSS 1.0 as RDF/XML is already with the W3C. For the 
specific application of syndication, RSS 1.0 doesn't do it for everyone. 
Long term, there is a far better chance of general agreement on Atom 
than either version of RSS.

If Atom is well-defined and extensible and a mapping to RDF is available 
(both of which are entirely feasible), I believe this will result in a 
net gain for everyone. Work is in progress [1] on a representation of 
the Atom model in RDF, once that has been defined then direct 
translation of Atom data will be possible. An XSLT translation from Atom 
XML to RSS 1.0 is possible, though this may be lossy without definition 
of parts of Atom not covered by RSS 1.0.

It's also worth noting that the syntax of RSS 1.0 is its weakest point, 
and I believe the time of RSS 1.0 enthusiasts would be better spent on 
trying to encourage Atom to have a solid model, RSS 1.0's strongest point.

Additionally, as Dan pointed out, Atom does provide a key piece of the 
syndication puzzle in its service API. There is stuff to be learnt!

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] http://semtext.org/atom

--

Raw
http://dannyayers.com