I am sorry that I forgot to use "Reply All" in the last mail...
Forwarding Mark's reply back to the mailing list and CC to
feedvalidator-users.
-Franklin
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mark Nottingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, 22 November, 2007 20:16
To: "Franklin Tse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Paged Feeds Question
Seems reasonable.
Cheers,
On 15/11/2007, at 11:46 AM, Franklin Tse wrote:
Hi Mark,
While the "self" link is unclear, having the same feed id in a set of
feed documents seems to be well-agreed. Should the Feed Validator issue
a notice on that?
Thanks,
Franklin
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Mark Nottingham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, 15 November, 2007 06:34
To: "Franklin Tse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Atom Syntax" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Paged Feeds Question
My recollection of discussions during 5005 was that we had to come up
with "current" precisely because "self" was ambiguous. People may have
a reason for advertising the archive document's URI in "self", and I
don't see what the utility of repeating it is.
YMMV.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
