Graham Parks wrote:
It's just I've never seen a byline in a newspaper that features
more than one name, and that's all the author element is there for.
See: Rice and Cheney Are Said to Push Iraqi Politicians on Stalemate
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and JOEL BRINKLEY
Julian Rescke wrote:
I really think that we should do something about the
link/rel=alternate issue. Requiring additional metadata that
sometimes doesn't exist (such as if the feed is self-contained) IMHO
leeds to implementors to ignore the requirement, or to just put in
a placeholder link
On 25 Apr 2005, at 7:17 am, Bob Wyman wrote:
Graham Parks wrote:
It's just I've never seen a byline in a newspaper that features
more than one name, and that's all the author element is there for.
See: Rice and Cheney Are Said to Push Iraqi Politicians on Stalemate
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and JOEL
Can you post some links to examples of feeds you think are difficult to
express in the current syntax? That would be considerably more
constructive than whatever the hell that was.
Graham
Graham wrote:
Can you post some links to examples of feeds you think are difficult to
express in the current syntax? That would be considerably more
constructive than whatever the hell that was.
I've done that before. Go read the archives.
On Apr 25, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Graham wrote:
Can you post some links to examples of feeds you think are difficult
to express in the current syntax? That would be considerably more
constructive than whatever the hell that was.
What Rob wants is what he said in
I would much prefer changing the MUST to a SHOULD rather than dropping
the requirement completely, which would achieve the same goal. I don't
believe requiring at least a summary is an unfair baseline requirement
in other use cases.
(btw I also think there's an equally valid use-case for
Hi. Speaking as an IESG member with limited context on the issue you
raise, you did not provide enough detail for me to understand the
point you bring up.
I think the focus of your message was wrong. You spent a lot of space
talking about IETF process and about how this would effect various
Tim Bray wrote:
On Apr 25, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Graham wrote:
Can you post some links to examples of feeds you think are difficult
to express in the current syntax? That would be considerably more
constructive than whatever the hell that was.
What Rob wants is what he said in
Sam Hartman wrote:
Hi. Speaking as an IESG member with limited context on the issue you
raise, you did not provide enough detail for me to understand the
point you bring up.
Hi Sam. I apologize for that. I see now that I was too brief on the
technical point, and too long winded for the IESG. The
On 4/25/05, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
I decided it would help if there was an actual Pace:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceOptionalSummary
It doesn't make sense to REQUIRE protocol elements for which there are
valid reasonable use cases where
Comments on the media type template.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: April 20, 2005 11:13:54 AM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: For review: application/atom+xml
[ CC: IESG, since I suppose this counts as a last call comment ]
Mark,
Robert Sayre wrote:
* What the specification does currently
In an Atom Entry, the specification currently requires a minimum set of
elements: title, id, and updated. Typically, there will also be a
link element. The specification includes a provision that allows its
omission on the condition
On Apr 25, 2005, at 3:49 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Comments on the media type template.
He's got a point on the namespace being mentioned, which creates some
semi-circular dependencies, sigh. As to whether it's currently in use,
largely due to lobbying from us, recent releases of both
On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 12:25 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
I decided it would help if there was an actual Pace:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceOptionalSummary
+1
I was driving to the airport with Lauren, whom some of you will know,
she's technical but hasn't been following Atom. I explained the debate
we are having over the required-ness of atom:summary, and she said
Don't you have anything better to talk about? I suspect she has a
point. Suppose we
16 matches
Mail list logo
