new SSFF proposal

[Ken MacLeod <ken@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Henri Sivonen <hsivonen@xxxxxx> writes:

> >    This specification describes version 0.3 of the Atom, an
> >    XML-based Web content and metadata syndication format.
> 
> I take it that the SSFF and putting the content items and the feed
> in separate HTTP resources are considered rejected ideas. Is this
> correct?

(outside of just this comment itself, I will ignore the jibe at my
ability to track issues and the presumption that Mark has somehow
"made a decision to reject certain ideas").

Here's another proposal for SSFF, courtesy of a comment from Sam,
starting from the background:

Atom is filling a traditional role (the RSS space) as well as new
roles like the API and archiving.

In several of those roles, and tradition itself, content is directly
part of the format (sent in the API and archived, for example).

Here's a suggestion that allows us to do both, allow inline content
and separate resources: add a flag to the feed that indicates that the
content resources are external, accessible via each entry's editURI,
and that the metadata contained in the entry construct are both
partial (a tiny subset of the available metadata) and advisory (the
real metadata is in the entry).

Thus the "simple" use of Atom, and wholly "view sourceable", is to
include content.  The advanced use of Atom, available for those who
have the bandwidth issues or the desire, allows external resources.

  <atom:feed>
    <atom:contentLocation>external

  -- Ken