Yves Dorfsman wrote:
>> you're right that there only can be one title, which is bad for
>> internationalization, but makes life easier for consumers. as
>> unfortunate as it is, it's not going to change (i guess),
> Why couldn't we extend / update the atom format to support
> internationalization ?
we could, but i would be surprised if that would get enough people
behind it to support it. it would break atom 1.0, and there seems to be
little desire to do that. the occurrence indicators for the metadata
elements on both the feed and the entry level in atom look fairly random
(at least that's my personal opinion), and it probably would have been
better to not create them this way. but that's what we have now, and i
don't see it changing anytime soon.
>> so you will
>> just have to make peace with this design. maybe use one feed per
>> language? not great, but correct and probably a pattern you'll see in
>> many places...
> So do you suggest to use the same <id> for both entries then?
you could certainly used localized feeds and from those point to
internationalized entry resources. but then you have to think about what
to do if the feed reader does not specify a language preference in HTTP
when GETting the entry, so maybe instead of using HTTP language
negotiation, it might be more robust to link to the entry URIs with the
language preference encoded in a query parameter, and let the entry
service accept both query parameter language preferences and HTTP