From crschmidt@crschmidt.net Mon Jun 18 16:51:15 2007
From: Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt@crschmidt.net>
To: openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org
Subject: Re: [OGDev] Summary field in atom/rss index
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 11:51:11 -0400
Message-ID: <20070618155111.GA3597@crschmidt.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070618140822.GC8114@the.earth.li>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4462956556953482467=="

--===============4462956556953482467==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 03:08:22PM +0100, Kake L Pugh wrote:
> Hello.  At the moment, when you ask for an atom feed of the entire
> site, it looks something like this:
> 
>   <entry>
>     <title>Adam And Eve, SW1H 9EX</title>
> [...]
>     <summary>Add Category Real Ale to GBG pubs. [AutoKake]</summary>
>     <updated>2007-05-04T17:46:28+01:00</updated>
>     <author><name>AutoKake</name></author>
> [...]
>   </entry>
> 
> Since we now have a proper summary field, should we putting its value in
> here instead of the latest change comment?

I think there is continuing confusion about what the RSS feeds are feeds
of -- the content, or the changes?

If they are feeds of changes, then the summary is not correct -- that's
a summary of the node, not of the change.

Boston has always treated them as feeds of nodes, ordered by most recent
update. Hence our (my) full-node-text output by default.

So, I'm in favor, but it does mean changing the meaning of these RSS
feeds, in my eyes, and I think that should be a consideration in the
decision.

Regards,
-- 
Christopher Schmidt
Web Developer


--===============4462956556953482467==--