Re: HTTP Accept Headers for Atom V1.0?

* Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-15 21:45]: > What would the HTTP Accept Headers for Atom V1.0 look like? > i.e. if I want to tell the server that I want Atom V1.0 but do > not want Atom 0.3? There is no official MIME type for Atom 0.3, is there? So technically you can’t even ask the serv

Re: Query on atom:source/atom:author in draft 10

Isofarro wrote: In defining both an atom:feed and atom:entry, atomAuthor is specified as allowing multiple authors, in both the text description and RELAX-NG formats. The atom:source defines atomAuthor as 0 or 1, not allowing multiple atomAuthors. (Section 4.2.11) Is that what was inte

Re: The Atomic age

On Friday, July 15, 2005, at 09:56 AM, Walter Underwood wrote: --On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, implementors... to work. Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in the "Deployment" section of

Re: FormatTests

Graham wrote: Why does the validator apparently fail outright when SHOULD level requirements are ignored? This seems unnecessary in light of having a spec where conformance levels are clearly defined. Can you be more specific? Perhaps this will help: FormatTests documents my intent. If yo

Query on atom:source/atom:author in draft 10

In defining both an atom:feed and atom:entry, atomAuthor is specified as allowing multiple authors, in both the text description and RELAX-NG formats. The atom:source defines atomAuthor as 0 or 1, not allowing multiple atomAuthors. (Section 4.2.11) Is that what was intended? Just seemed a

Re: The Atomic age

Sjoerd Visscher wrote: Dan Brickley wrote: Let me emphasise that I'm not claiming these Atom docs "are" reasonably interpreted as RDF. Just that they seem to, by happy coincidence as it were, at least share a syntax with RDF. The intepretation of this syntactic state of affairs is up for d

Re: The Atomic age

Dan Brickley wrote: Let me emphasise that I'm not claiming these Atom docs "are" reasonably interpreted as RDF. Just that they seem to, by happy coincidence as it were, at least share a syntax with RDF. The intepretation of this syntactic state of affairs is up for discussion. I've never un

Re: The Atomic age

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: * Dan Brickley wrote: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/a1.xml `Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9`. Hurray... I could fix that... question is, to what? :) The Atom spec says Atom docs are identified using the Atom media type, but I do

Re: The Atomic age

* Dan Brickley wrote: >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/a1.xml `Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9`. Hurray... -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim ·

Re: FormatTests

Why does the validator apparently fail outright when SHOULD level requirements are ignored? This seems unnecessary in light of having a spec where conformance levels are clearly defined. Graham

Re: The Atomic age

Robert Sayre wrote: http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F :) Oh, is it upgraded to be a 1.0 validator? front page talks about 0.3 still... I've just downloaded Jing, been checking things that way using: java -jar jing-20030619

Re: The Atomic age

On Jul 15, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Robert Sayre wrote: http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F Hmm... the feed looks OK to me; I wouldn't be surprised if it's tickling a bug in the just-barely-into-beta Atom 1.0 feedvalidator code. -Tim

HTTP Accept Headers for Atom V1.0?

What would the HTTP Accept Headers for Atom V1.0 look like? i.e. if I want to tell the server that I want Atom V1.0 but do not want Atom 0.3?       bob wyman    

Re: The Atomic age

http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F :) Robert Sayre On 7/15/05, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 15 Jul 2005, at 4:56 pm, Walter Underwood wrote: > > > Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in > > the "

Re: The Atomic age

On 15 Jul 2005, at 4:56 pm, Walter Underwood wrote: Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in the "Deployment" section of . My blog has one here: http://www.fondantfancies.com/blog/atom1/ I think it's valid, though it's hard to

Re: The Atomic age

Absolutely. Robert Sayre On 7/15/05, Henry Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sorry. It looks like there is a final namespace: > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom > > Is that correct? > > Henry > > On 15 Jul 2005, at 20:06, Henry Story wrote: > > > > It would be easy to add atom to BlogEd, th

Re: The Atomic age

Sorry. It looks like there is a final namespace: http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom Is that correct? Henry On 15 Jul 2005, at 20:06, Henry Story wrote: It would be easy to add atom to BlogEd, though I really would like the http://bblfish.net/blog/archive. 10.atom"> to be agreed upon. This w

Re: The Atomic age

It would be easy to add atom to BlogEd, though I really would like the http://bblfish.net/blog/archive. 10.atom"> to be agreed upon. This would allow me to place all the blog content in an archive. It would of course also be useful to have the namespace. Henry On 15 Jul 2005, at 17:56

Re: The Atomic age

Congrats All! I'll be updating my personal blog feed to Atom 1.0 shortly. I've already updated my IBM internal blog feed to Atom 1.0. Took less than five minutes to update from 0.3 to 1.0. Tim Bray wrote: Paul assures me that the remaining IETF process steps will not introduce materi

Re: The Atomic age

On Jul 15, 2005, at 8:56 AM, Walter Underwood wrote: --On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, implementors... to work. Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in the "Deployment" section of

Re: The Atomic age

--On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, implementors... to work. Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in the "Deployment" section of . Ultraseek will implement Atom. We need to think more

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.txt

/ Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say: | A misspelling...in case the opportunity to fix it arises: "Text Contruct" | -- missing an "s" in 6.3. (I found it because I misspelled it the same way | when searching for it!) Also in the "typo" category: # -*- rnc -*- # RELAX NG Compact

web presence

http://atompub.org/ Robert Sayre

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.txt

A misspelling...in case the opportunity to fix it arises: "Text Contruct" -- missing an "s" in 6.3. (I found it because I misspelled it the same way when searching for it!)

Re: The Atomic age

On 7/15/05, Asbjørn Ulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:32:29 +0200, Anne van Kesteren > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (Except for the namespace that is. Ouch!) > > Yea, that was a bit awkward. http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom/BiKeShEd? (yay!) Robert Sayre

Re: The Atomic age

On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:32:29 +0200, Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yay! I second this yay. Yay! (Except for the namespace that is. Ouch!) Yea, that was a bit awkward. The format has a couple of other minor flaws as well, but nothing worth fighting for and nothing seriou

Re: The Atomic age

Quoting Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Paul assures me that the remaining IETF process steps will not introduce material technical changes, and so format-10 is appropriate as a basis for implementors to go to work. So, implementors... to work. And everyone, now is a good time to tell the w