-- Forwarded message --
From: Julie Allinson
Date: 21 January 2011 22:44
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ian Stuart
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 21/01/2011 08:46, Ian Stuart wrote:
>
> On 20/01/11 18:11, Julie Allinson wrote:
>>
>> I might be ta
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart
Date: 21 January 2011 21:46
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 20/01/11 18:11, Julie Allinson wrote:
>
> I might be talking nonsense here, but is this something that could
> support '
-- Forwarded message --
From: Julie Allinson
Date: 21 January 2011 07:11
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Richard Jones
Cc: Ed Summers , techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19/01/2011 17:26, Richard Jones wrote:
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> On 19/01/11 13:27, Ed Summers
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott Wilson
Date: 20 January 2011 22:10
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ian Stuart
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 20 Jan 2011, at 09:00, Ian Stuart wrote:
> On 19/01/11 17:26, Richard Jones wrote:
>> Also, as per m
-- Forwarded message --
From: Graham Triggs
Date: 11 January 2011 04:40
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Richard Jones
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 7 January 2011 17:36, Richard Jones wrote:
>
> 1/ Use the Accept-Encoding header in some way. Do
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart
Date: 20 January 2011 22:00
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19/01/11 17:26, Richard Jones wrote:
>
> Also, as per my earlier comment about export plugins in EPrints, you
> could ea
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones
Date: 20 January 2011 06:26
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ed Summers
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Ed,
On 19/01/11 13:27, Ed Summers wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Richard Jones
> wrot
-- Forwarded message --
From: Graham Triggs
Date: 20 January 2011 04:56
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ed Summers
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
I'm sorry, but I don't follow this...
On 19 January 2011 13:27, Ed Summers wrote:
>
> Would it be too r
-- Forwarded message --
From: Robert D. Sanderson
Date: 20 January 2011 04:53
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
> I don't think you can ever get away from a degree of content negotiation,
> but it doesn't necessarily need to b
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott Wilson
Date: 20 January 2011 02:37
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ed Summers
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19 Jan 2011, at 13:27, Ed Summers wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Richard Jones
> wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ed Summers
Date: 20 January 2011 02:27
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Richard Jones wrote:
> We've had a few discussions in the past about "supporting" some fo
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart
Date: 20 January 2011 01:27
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19/01/11 11:28, Richard Jones wrote:
>
> I think we're talking slightly cross-purposes here. The problem with the
> cont
-- Forwarded message --
From: Graham Triggs
Date: 20 January 2011 00:29
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Scott Wilson
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19 January 2011 09:49, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
> I think its time to take a step backwards here.
>
>
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones
Date: 20 January 2011 00:28
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Scott Wilson
Cc: Ian Stuart , techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19/01/11 10:16, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
> On 19 Jan 2011, at 10:05, Ian Stuart wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart
Date: 19 January 2011 23:33
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Scott Wilson
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19/01/11 10:16, Scott Wilson wrote:
>>
>> I have an excellent content package that will either work wi
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott Wilson
Date: 19 January 2011 23:16
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ian Stuart
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19 Jan 2011, at 10:05, Ian Stuart wrote:
> On 19/01/11 09:49, Scott Wilson wrote:
>> I would suggest
-- Forwarded message --
From: David FLANDERS
Date: 19 January 2011 23:03
Subject: RE: content negotiating for package formats
To: Scott Wilson ,
"techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org"
Enjoying watching the discussion :) getting good now... keep it coming. /dff
> -Original Message
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart
Date: 19 January 2011 23:05
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19/01/11 09:49, Scott Wilson wrote:
>
> I would suggest SWORD is completely agnostic on the subject of
> packaged conten
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott Wilson
Date: 19 January 2011 22:49
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
I think its time to take a step backwards here.
The "packaging problem" identified by the SWORD project was not that
SWO
-- Forwarded message --
From: Graham Triggs
Date: 19 January 2011 22:45
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ian Stuart
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19 January 2011 08:44, Ian Stuart wrote:
>
> On 19/01/11 08:06, Richard Jones wrote:
>>
>> and your
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart
Date: 19 January 2011 21:44
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19/01/11 08:06, Richard Jones wrote:
>
> and your content negotiation header says:
>
> Accept: A; q=1.0, B; q=0.8
> Acce
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones
Date: 19 January 2011 21:06
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ian Stuart
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Ian,
On 18/01/11 12:11, Ian Stuart wrote:
>
> On 10/01/11 18:49, Richard Jones wrote:
>>
>> It's loo
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart
Date: 19 January 2011 01:11
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 10/01/11 18:49, Richard Jones wrote:
>
> It's looking like a separate header is the way to do this, with the
> following
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones
Date: 16 January 2011 22:08
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Graham Klyne
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Graham,
>>> I'm also wondering about your combination of content-type and internal
>>> packaging
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones
Date: 12 January 2011 09:52
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Graham Klyne
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Graham,
On 11/01/11 19:05, Graham Klyne wrote:
>
> Richard - a small thing: rather than using the
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones
Date: 11 January 2011 07:49
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Folks,
Thanks, this is really great stuff.
On 10/01/11 16:05, Robert D. Sanderson wrote:
>>
>> On 7 January 2011 17
-- Forwarded message --
From: Robert D. Sanderson
Date: 11 January 2011 05:05
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Graham Triggs
Cc: Richard Jones , techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
> On 7 January 2011 17:36, Richard Jones wrote:
>> 2/ Define an extension to t
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart
Date: 11 January 2011 04:01
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
More specifically. the Open Access Repository Junction "Discovery"
APIs use the "Accept" header to determine the conten
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott Wilson
Date: 11 January 2011 03:55
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
To answer the CMIS question - AFAIK CMIS doesn't explicitly support
external packaging formats (in its scope it declares
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Tarrant
Date: 11 January 2011 03:20
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ian Stuart
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
I agree with Ian, why can we just use the existing x-packaging header,
cos that's how point (2) works in
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart
Date: 11 January 2011 03:04
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
We're looking at two things here, are we not?
1) we want the data returned in s specific media type (zip file, xml,
json,
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones
Date: 8 January 2011 06:36
Subject: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Folks,
I'd be really interested in people's input on the following problem
that I've come across in creating the first dr
32 matches
Mail list logo
