Robert Sayre wrote:
On 4/28/05, Roger B. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have an example?
Robert: I'm an example. I also drop title-free feeds (see Scripting
News)... given the nature of the app, a feed without titles or content
is just worthless.
That's fine, but we're not here to tailor the
On 4/28/05, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And of course we're going to have to fish some
sort of consensus out of this horrid summary-required mess.
That shouldn't be hard. I don't think the WG has ever been more
decisive. If PaceOptionalSummary received 10 negative opinions, I'm
quite
On 4/28/05, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert: why did you ask for an example?
To find out about any technical issues, not to hear Roger repeat himself.
Robert Sayre
Graham wrote:
On 27 Apr 2005, at 10:31 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
My opinion is that ~10 WG members are currently clearly stating their
belief that summary/content are optional.
You should make clear that most of those people supported a misleading
Pace that didn't clearly state its side-effects
Tim Bray wrote:
And of course we're going to have to fish some sort of
consensus out of this horrid summary-required mess. -Tim
I can't agree with that observation. Although there are a few strenuous
objections against title only feeds, on the balance consensus is for
them. Is there something
On 28 Apr 2005, at 10:48 am, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
And of course we're going to have to fish some sort of consensus out
of this horrid summary-required mess. -Tim
I can't agree with that observation. Although there are a few
strenuous objections against title only feeds, on the
Graham wrote:
On 28 Apr 2005, at 10:48 am, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
And of course we're going to have to fish some sort of consensus out
of this horrid summary-required mess. -Tim
I can't agree with that observation. Although there are a few
strenuous objections against title only
On 28 Apr 2005, at 11:34 am, Bill de hÓra wrote:
I haven't seen any objections to title only feeds which you state
is my and Sam's and other's position (we object to feeds that could
have a summary included but don't).
That last objection in parens sounds like some of the positions held
around
Sorry, what was your point again?
Eric: The point was that the *application* drops title- or
content-free entries. It never inserts them into the database. They go
poof.
--
Roger Benningfield
Graham wrote:
On 28 Apr 2005, at 11:34 am, Bill de hÓra wrote:
I haven't seen any objections to title only feeds which you state
is my and Sam's and other's position (we object to feeds that could
have a summary included but don't).
That last objection in parens sounds like some of the positions
Sam Ruby wrote:
This is not a theoretical discussion. Quoting from RSS 0.92[1]:
* All sub-elements of item are optional
* any 0.92 source is also a valid 2.0 source
Is this really where we want to go?
No, but please see my other mail replying to Graham on why I think
PaceOptionalSummary does
On 4/28/05, Roger B. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's fine, but we're not here to tailor the format to your app.
Robert: Seriously, dude. C'mon.
You're right, that was too snippy.
But you asked a question, and I answered it. Honestly,
straightforwardly, and without an weasel-words. I
I'm obviously very down on normative language requiring a summary. I
am open to non-normative language explaining the syndication medium as
we see it today. I acknowledge that people who don't know what they're
doing sometimes create unhappy users by providing title-only feeds.
The examples,
The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Atom Publishing Format and Protocol
WG to consider the following document:
- 'The Atom Syndication Format '
draft-ietf-atompub-format-08.txt as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
I'll +1 on MAY.
On 27 Apr 2005, at 04:29, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 4/26/05, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul I are gonna watch a little more debate and then
we'll call rough consensus one way or the other, at which point I at
least will become crushingly rude to anyone who wants to invest
Unsurprising, but good news I'd say:
From: Michelle Cotton via RT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: April 28, 2005 8:58:51 PM PDT
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [rt.icann.org #2905] Last Call: 'The Atom Syndication Format'
to Proposed Standard
16 matches
Mail list logo
