does hatom for comments make sense?

A while back somebody showed me a blog marked up with hatom.
That
person used hatom on the comments too (on the single post
page) --
that meant two hfeeds: one containing only the post, and
another one
with the comments.

Does this way of using hatom on comments make sense to you?
I noticed
that neither K2 nor Sandbox wordpress themes do this.

Steph

-- 
http://climbtothestars.or
g/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 11 Sep 2006, at 23:17, Stephanie Booth (bunny) wrote:
> Does this way of using hatom on comments make sense to
you?

It does to me, yes. Although not using two separate hAtom
feeds. I'd  
just have one with the original post as the first entry in
the feed  
and comments following on sequentially. It's _a feed of the
 
discussion_, in my eyes.

I'm not sure I understand the reason for wanting multiple
feeds or  
nested feeds to represent comments. I can't see the need
for a  
distinction between a comment and the original post at all.

The most important thing, with regards to the Atom 1.0 spec,
is that  
the id for the original post in the comments feed should be
the same  
as the id for that same post in the main, front-page feed.
If a  
conforming feed reader were to subscribe to both feeds, it
should  
understand that they are the same entry.

Ben

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

On 9/11/06, Ben Ward <listsben-ward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006, at 23:17, Stephanie Booth (bunny)
wrote:
> > Does this way of using hatom on comments make
sense to you?
>
> It does to me, yes. Although not using two separate
hAtom feeds. I'd
> just have one with the original post as the first entry
in the feed
> and comments following on sequentially. It's _a feed
of the
> discussion_, in my eyes.

Don't forget that hAtom isn't a "feed" per-se.
It's semantic mark up
of elements of in HTML document to say they have a certain
meaning.
Using this as a feed is a choice you may make (I don't
think it's a
wise one) but that's an application of the data.

>
> I'm not sure I understand the reason for wanting
multiple feeds or
> nested feeds to represent comments. I can't see the
need for a
> distinction between a comment and the original post at
all.

Well, again that's a choice you can make but I'd say most
people
clearly have a logical distinction between a post they've
made and a
comment some random stranger has applied to that post.

Regards, etc...
David
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Hi Steph,

Le 12 sept. 06 à 07:17, Stephanie Booth (bunny) a écrit :
> A while back somebody showed me a blog marked up with
hatom. That
> person used hatom on the comments too (on the single
post page) --
> that meant two hfeeds: one containing only the post,
and another one
> with the comments.
>
> Does this way of using hatom on comments make sense to
you? I noticed
> that neither K2 nor Sandbox wordpress themes do this.

Completely logical.

Each individual comment is nothing more than a weblog post.
The only technical difference is that it is not made on
another  
weblog, but directly on the weblog of the person.

Each individual comment is structured like a weblog post.
It has  (required)
	- an id, the URI of the comment
	- a title, often the same than the original weblog post,
sometimes a  
different (see SPIP)
	- a date when it has been done (updated)
It has (recommended)
	- often an author
	- content (core text of the comment)
	- link (the URI of the Weblog original post we are
commenting on)

It just miss a summary, but that is not mandatory in Atom
either.

IMHO, it should be an individual hatom entry for each
comment, The  
way everything is aggregated and organized has a full feed
is another  
debate. The date and link should help to create a pseudo
thread.
It could be a full thread like in SPIP when the commenter
has the  
possibility to reply to a specific comment in this case the
link  
becomes the URI of the specific comment.



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/Peop
le/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***


_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

How would you handle nested comments like in Digg for
example?

Just curious how that fits into the model -- I suppose it
would map to
what you described?

Chris

On 9/11/06, Karl Dubost <karlw3.org> wrote:
> Hi Steph,
>
> Le 12 sept. 06 à 07:17, Stephanie Booth (bunny) a écrit
:
> > A while back somebody showed me a blog marked up
with hatom. That
> > person used hatom on the comments too (on the
single post page) --
> > that meant two hfeeds: one containing only the
post, and another one
> > with the comments.
> >
> > Does this way of using hatom on comments make
sense to you? I noticed
> > that neither K2 nor Sandbox wordpress themes do
this.
>
> Completely logical.
>
> Each individual comment is nothing more than a weblog
post.
> The only technical difference is that it is not made on
another
> weblog, but directly on the weblog of the person.
>
> Each individual comment is structured like a weblog
post.
> It has  (required)
>         - an id, the URI of the comment
>         - a title, often the same than the original
weblog post, sometimes a
> different (see SPIP)
>         - a date when it has been done (updated)
> It has (recommended)
>         - often an author
>         - content (core text of the comment)
>         - link (the URI of the Weblog original post we
are commenting on)
>
> It just miss a summary, but that is not mandatory in
Atom either.
>
> IMHO, it should be an individual hatom entry for each
comment, The
> way everything is aggregated and organized has a full
feed is another
> debate. The date and link should help to create a
pseudo thread.
> It could be a full thread like in SPIP when the
commenter has the
> possibility to reply to a specific comment in this case
the link
> becomes the URI of the specific comment.
>
>
>
> --
> Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/Peop
le/karl/
> W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
>    QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
>       *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discussmicroformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
>


-- 
Chris Messina
Citizen Provocateur &
  Open Source Ambassador-at-Large
Work: http://citizenagency.com
Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog

Cell: 412 225-1051
Skype: factoryjoe
This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ]
private
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

1. you don't have to, it's bonus meta-info.
2. you can probably map cite-rel to Atom Threading
Extensions -
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/dr
aft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-12.txt
and get as good a coverage as you would from atom.

Eran.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: microformats-discuss-bouncesmicroformats.org [mailto:microformats-
> discuss-bouncesmicroformats.org] On Behalf Of Chris
Messina
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:14 PM
> To: Microformats Discuss
> Subject: Re: Re: [uf-discuss] does hatom for comments
make sense?
> 
> How would you handle nested comments like in Digg for
example?
> 
> Just curious how that fits into the model -- I suppose
it would map to
> what you described?
> 
> Chris
> 
> On 9/11/06, Karl Dubost <karlw3.org> wrote:
> > Hi Steph,
> >
> > Le 12 sept. 06 à 07:17, Stephanie Booth (bunny) a
écrit :
> > > A while back somebody showed me a blog marked
up with hatom. That
> > > person used hatom on the comments too (on the
single post page) --
> > > that meant two hfeeds: one containing only
the post, and another one
> > > with the comments.
> > >
> > > Does this way of using hatom on comments make
sense to you? I noticed
> > > that neither K2 nor Sandbox wordpress themes
do this.
> >
> > Completely logical.
> >
> > Each individual comment is nothing more than a
weblog post.
> > The only technical difference is that it is not
made on another
> > weblog, but directly on the weblog of the person.
> >
> > Each individual comment is structured like a
weblog post.
> > It has  (required)
> >         - an id, the URI of the comment
> >         - a title, often the same than the
original weblog post,
> sometimes a
> > different (see SPIP)
> >         - a date when it has been done (updated)
> > It has (recommended)
> >         - often an author
> >         - content (core text of the comment)
> >         - link (the URI of the Weblog original
post we are commenting
> on)
> >
> > It just miss a summary, but that is not mandatory
in Atom either.
> >
> > IMHO, it should be an individual hatom entry for
each comment, The
> > way everything is aggregated and organized has a
full feed is another
> > debate. The date and link should help to create a
pseudo thread.
> > It could be a full thread like in SPIP when the
commenter has the
> > possibility to reply to a specific comment in this
case the link
> > becomes the URI of the specific comment.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/Peop
le/karl/
> > W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
> >    QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
> >       *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > microformats-discuss mailing list
> > microformats-discussmicroformats.org
> > http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Chris Messina
> Citizen Provocateur &
>   Open Source Ambassador-at-Large
> Work: http://citizenagency.com
> Blog: http://factoryjoe.com/blog

> Cell: 412 225-1051
> Skype: factoryjoe
> This email is:   [ ] bloggable    [X] ask first   [ ]
private
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discussmicroformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Le 12 sept. 06 à 14:13, Chris Messina a écrit :
> How would you handle nested comments like in Digg for
example?
>
> Just curious how that fits into the model -- I suppose
it would map to
> what you described?

nested comments = threading.
there is all we need in hatom (atom) to do that.

Just think that a comment is "a weblog post about a
weblog post"


uri1  <--- comment-x/uri2 about uri1
            <--- comment-xa/uri5 about uri2
            <--- comment-xb/uri6 about uri2
       <--- comment-y/uri3 about uri1
       <--- comment-z/uri4 about uri1

It is just a question of having the right *atomic* model.
and to make individual statements about things.
Then the application layer is above.



-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/Peop
le/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager, QA Activity Lead
   QA Weblog - http://www.w3.org/QA/
      *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***


_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

Right -- and a uF for expressing that relationship; this
gets a little
trickier. As uFs are about codifying existing practices, my
(superficial) look at comment nesting shows that many sites
(like
slashdot) using nesting to express relationships, not
explicit URI
linking. On the other hand, threaded mail list managers do
use links
to express the hierarchy.

The nice part is that this (hypothetical uF) composites with
hAtom to
achieve our result; the trickier part is documenting nesting
examples
to support the uF.

Regards, etc...
David

On 9/12/06, Karl Dubost <karlw3.org> wrote:

> Just think that a comment is "a weblog post about
a weblog post"
>
>
> uri1  <--- comment-x/uri2 about uri1
>             <--- comment-xa/uri5 about uri2
>             <--- comment-xb/uri6 about uri2
>        <--- comment-y/uri3 about uri1
>        <--- comment-z/uri4 about uri1
>
> It is just a question of having the right *atomic*
model.
> and to make individual statements about things.
> Then the application layer is above.
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

I think that if using hAtom for comments is going to become
'standard'
that we definately need to use class="comments"
(or something similar)
to identify the nested comments feeds inside the main hfeed.
 Also,
comments don't really have a 'title'... you could use the
original
post title (rarely done, and could confuse the user), or an
auto-generated thing based on content (ie 'comment by jake
on post'...
usually how comment feed titles work, but then you have data
duplication..)
   -- Singpolyma

On 9/12/06, David Janes <davidjanesblogmatrix.com> wrote:
> Right -- and a uF for expressing that relationship;
this gets a little
> trickier. As uFs are about codifying existing
practices, my
> (superficial) look at comment nesting shows that many
sites (like
> slashdot) using nesting to express relationships, not
explicit URI
> linking. On the other hand, threaded mail list managers
do use links
> to express the hierarchy.
>
> The nice part is that this (hypothetical uF) composites
with hAtom to
> achieve our result; the trickier part is documenting
nesting examples
> to support the uF.
>
> Regards, etc...
> David
>
> On 9/12/06, Karl Dubost <karlw3.org> wrote:
>
> > Just think that a comment is "a weblog post
about a weblog post"
> >
> >
> > uri1  <--- comment-x/uri2 about uri1
> >             <--- comment-xa/uri5 about uri2
> >             <--- comment-xb/uri6 about uri2
> >        <--- comment-y/uri3 about uri1
> >        <--- comment-z/uri4 about uri1
> >
> > It is just a question of having the right *atomic*
model.
> > and to make individual statements about things.
> > Then the application layer is above.
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discussmicroformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss
>


-- 
- Stephen Paul Weber, Amateur Writer
<http://www.awriterz.org&g
t;

MSN/GTalk/Jabber: singpolymagmail.com
ICQ/AIM: 103332966
NSA: stephen4northstar-academy.org
BLOG: http://singpolym
a-tech.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss

would the feeds be nested? I think that in the example I
saw, there
were two feeds. One with only the blog post, and a separate
one with
the comments. Is it permitted by hAtom to nest feeds? I
thought it
wasn't.

Steph

On 9/12/06, Stephen Paul Weber <singpolymagmail.com> wrote:
> I think that if using hAtom for comments is going to
become 'standard'
> that we definately need to use
class="comments" (or something similar)
> to identify the nested comments feeds inside the main
hfeed.  Also,
> comments don't really have a 'title'... you could
use the original
> post title (rarely done, and could confuse the user),
or an
> auto-generated thing based on content (ie 'comment by
jake on post'...
> usually how comment feed titles work, but then you have
data
> duplication..)
>    -- Singpolyma

-- 
http://climbtothestars.or
g/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discussmicroformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microforma
ts-discuss