Talk:Atom (web standard)

message: Just want to let it be known that Reference link #4 is a bogus link.  I'd edit it, but I want it verified, plus I'm still new to Wikipedia. Zer0Nin3r (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The link goes to a page in a wiki, which some annoying spammer just hacked into. I looked for an equivalent in Tim Bray's own site, but he recommends the "live" version on the wiki. What's the solution here, anybody? betsythedevine (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus Link

message: Atom Publishing Protocol is introduced as a part of the Atom standard in the header of this article, but it is never mentioned again.  There should either be a separate article for APP or there should be some high level technical description of what APP is.
--Rektide (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: APP / AtomPub never mentioned 

message: User:Toussaint made an edit that said "Unlike RSS and other similar applications are based on the World Wide Web Consortium's RDF standard, Atom is not".  If such a statement is to stand, it needs to qualify which versions of RSS it is talking about. -- SamRuby 03:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RDF

message: Merge completed and notice removed. JesseW 22:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Sam Ruby link http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/Rss20AndAtom10Compared in external links lists them. Perhaps someone should copy the gist or ask Sam to summarise? --BozMotalk 15:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be useful.  It mentions that there is a large list of Atom supporters.  Can you name some prominent ones.  Also an article on Sam Ruby would be useful. --Ben Houston 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Discussion

message: It'd be cool if the article talked about WSSE authentication. Mathiastck 18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone who understood WSSE wanted to add something to the article, that would be welcome. Our current article on WS-Security makes no mention of Atom. Possibly Atom is just a user of that spec. If you know,  please comment. EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WSSE Authentication 

message: Is there an official XML Schema for Atom? I tried to find it on the w3c site but that only redirected me to the IETF site that did not provide an XML Schema.  I found may other atom.xsd files but many of them are not correct.
Thanks --Dan 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XML Schema for Atom 

message: It would be nice if this page would link to or supply a list of programs etc. that can be used to read Atom feeds. Shinobu 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software 

message: The detailed early history of who invented what web syndication format element when has become a matter of interest and dispute. The same kind of problems cropping up in the article about Podcasting were largely solved when somebody created a separate article for History of podcasting. This seems like a possible solution for web feeds also.
Another possible benefit of the change is to prevent a Wikipedia fork in feed history, so that somebody with a new citation adds to info to one article but doesn't realize that an incorrect version still lurks in a different article. 
From RSS, I copied the earliest history over to the new article, then went back to RSS and re-phrased that earliest history as summary.
I'm not sure, however, if people who edit this Atom article would like to see its technical history moved into a different article. On the good side, that would give people interested in technical history one place to look. On the dark side, if there aren't severe credit disputes on early Atom, maybe you feel such a move isn't needed. Or maybe you would like to keep all the history of Atom here, and just put a history summary in the new article? Just for the sake of symmetry, I copied the Atom history over to that page. It shouldn't be left in both places, or it will fork--one page should have the history, the other should just summarize and point to t he long version. Could we discuss on this talk page which  course would be best?My intention is good, please don't flame me.  betsythedevine 03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New article: History of web syndication technology

message: I did a cleanup of this section a few days ago, but it was rv'd, and the editor who rv'd has not replied to a message on his talk page, so I decided to tag the section for cleanup.  I think that this section suffers from a couple of serious problems:
#. It's excessively promotional, copied almost verbatim from lists that have been circulated by Atom supporters to try to convince people to abandon RSS, and it needs to be rewritten with a more balanced and neutral tone rather than a stridently pro-Atom/anti-RSS one.  Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for promoting a spec over another one, even if the spec's a good one.
#* if you see promotional verbage, converting those words to a more balanced and neutral tone would be a good thing.  Removing data which is relevant is not. SamRuby 01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atom vs. RSS 2.0 section cleanup 

message: Our article on Atom (standard) does not really need to take sides between the two protocols. Here is some existing language that I think might be toned down:The development of Atom was motivated by the existence of many incompatible versions of the RSS syndication format, all of which had shortcomings, and the poor interoperability of XML-RPC-based publishing protocols.[1]
How about replacing it with this version:Ben Trott was one of the advocates of the new format that became Atom. He took note of the incompatibility between some versions of the RSS syndication format, and also believed that XML-RPC-based publishing protocols were not sufficiently interoperable.[1]
This attributes the opinion to its owner (Ben Trott) and doesn't make us collect data and references to prove that the dialects of RSS were incompatible, which surely would be time-consuming. Let me know if anyone objects to this change. EdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the first part of that statement, that's like saying: "It's really annoying that Blue-ray and HD DVD are incompatible. I know! Let's create a third DVD format, SuperDVD, that's incompatible with both of them!" Was Ben Trott really making that argument? Because it sounds kind of insane. I read the referenced article, "Why We Need Echo", but didn't see any mention of RSS dialects or incompatibilities. j4_james (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality between Atom and RSS 

message: * RSS 2.0 support for enclosures [...]
Atom also supports enclosures.
Wooptoo (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This section is trying to explain why Atom didn't take over the world and why RSS still survives. The points are a bit speculative and sourcing could be better. Perhaps someone will get around to improving the section :-).  EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barriers to adoption 

message: With this edit, an editor removed several items from See Also that were also mentioned in the text. I've seen debates like this before, and I now support the removal of such duplication. Wikipedia is not a directory. The place where it is most useful to draw attention to other relevant articles is in the text, where their connection to the topic can be explained.  EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also sections can be overdone 

message: Header of article talks about Atom & Atom Publiishing Protocols both, but everything after header is specific to the CORE atom spec.  No discussion of APP. --Rektide (talk) 03:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  APP 

message: Matt Brubeck partly fixed a problem with a too-general claim about RSS incompatibility, with this edit. Four qualifiers I'd still like to see:
#This is Mark Pilgrim's opinion
#This was his opinion in 2004
#Not clear that the dialects mentioned are still in wide use (so 'wide use' lacks a reference)
#He's only going by the texts of the specs, and not showing actual difficulties that RSS creators and readers are known to have. (Why do we not hear of actual problems that people have in 2008 with RSS incompatibilities?)
I'd welcome a better-qualified sentence here. From a modern standpoint, the RSS/Atom brouhaha seems hard to understand, since the Atom people felt so strongly they were fixing an important problem, but the thing they thought was broken (RSS) continues to flourish and you don't seem to hear complaints. EdJohnston (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Multiple incompatible versions of RSS in wide use' 

message: This article did not pass a GA review, and it needs quite a bit of work before it is ready. I removed "GA" from the class template, but the article had never been added to the actual Good articles list. As such, I am skipping the formal process or reassessment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA delisting

message: I propose for addition of the following link : http://library.skjworld.com/internet/atom-publishing-protocol 
I think it is objectively one of the most comprehensive page on Atom Publishing Protocol and Atom Syndication Format. Since 1 week has passed and no one has objected based on any concrete reason should I add it to the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skj.saurabh (talk • contribs) 13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links Discussion 

message: In consideration of WP:NPOV, I think it is inappropriate for this article to have an ever-growing list of external links to people's praise of Atom and disparagement of RSS -- and is there even one link on the list to arguments made from the other side? I would like somebody who knows more about this than I do to prune these categories to a size more appropriate to its importance and if possible to add some balance to the linkage. betsythedevine (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links: somebody please prune the evangelism and motivation sections (what is the difference?) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Atom (standard). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070301043011/http://www.ibm.com:80/developerworks/library/x-atompp1/ to http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-atompp1/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there any? What about atomenabled.org? I found it difficult to read and understand RFC specification to get anything. Maybe it worth to put this link in Resources?-- wihola  talk. 12:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a clickable version of that link: http://atomenabled.org.  Why is a page about Atom advertising Minecraft?  Rather than link to this page, it could be more helpful to improve the Wikipedia article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Official website link

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Atom (standard). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060717202415/http://travel2.nytimes.com:80/2006/01/29/travel/29prac.html to http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/travel/29prac.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What should users believe when they read the Wiki and it makes no mention of the following info, which appears authoritative and post-dates the linked IETF docs by several years?
http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata-atom-format/v4.0/odata-atom-format-v4.0.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhabdas (talk • contribs) 12:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  OData Atom Format 

message: Would it be worthwhile to add a new section describing OData and how it works with Atom?
http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata-atom-format/v4.0/odata-atom-format-v4.0.html
Jhabdas (talk) 12:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  OData Atom Format 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Atom (standard). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/travel/29prac.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060208154438/http://backend.userland.com/2003/06/26 to http://backend.userland.com/2003/06/26
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018010134/http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atompub-charter.html to http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atompub-charter.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ho hum. Just came across an editor in good faith reading (standard) as meaning (jazz song). Whatever we think of that, clearly (standard) isn't very helpful per WP:AT criteria. I have moved to (Web standard) leaving (standard) as primary redirect following the first line. (Cloud standard) as category would be narrower. If anyone has a problem, feel free to move it back. Not worth wasting more bytes on. cf. WIDL (Internet Standard) ANCAP (commodity standard) etc. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: (standard), better (Cloud standard) or (Web standard)