On 01/10/2005 01:05, James Holderness wrote:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. As I've explained before, I have a pretty
strong preference for the current design, to make it usable in other
formats; i.e., the scope of this is not just Atom (which is why I'm
probably going
At 16:45 05/10/02, James M Snell wrote:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom-extensions works for me... assuming, of
course, that Those-Who-Officially-Assign-Such-Things go along with it.
Tim and Paul know who to contact.
The original .../ace URI was just a working thing pitched with full
knowledge
At 07:04 05/10/03, Walter Underwood wrote:
--On October 2, 2005 9:35:28 AM +0200 Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having a file and folder of the same name is not technically possible.
(Although
you could emulate the effect of course with some mod_rewrite.)
Namespaces aren't
I really like the ACE proposal, and I think the name is a good one
too :-)
It can't harm to have this option on the table now. No one is forced
to use it.
But I think it will have a few positive effects:
- proposals that use it will have a cool ace namespace name
- proposals that
On Oct 2, 2005, at 11:15 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I think this is a well-intentioned effort, but at the wrong end of
the process. The market (i.e., users and implementors) should have
a go at sorting out at what's common/prevalent enough to merit this
sort of thing; having a co-ordinated
* Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-03 17:11]:
The overhead of including multiple namespace declarations
isn't going to be that great.
I am coming around to the view that it doesn’t offer anything
worthwhile. My own apprehension at lumping everything into a flat
space, which led me to
Antone Roundy wrote:
On Oct 2, 2005, at 11:15 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I think this is a well-intentioned effort, but at the wrong end of
the process. The market (i.e., users and implementors) should have a
go at sorting out at what's common/prevalent enough to merit this
sort of
Martin Duerst wrote:
At 07:04 05/10/03, Walter Underwood wrote:
--On October 2, 2005 9:35:28 AM +0200 Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having a file and folder of the same name is not technically possible.
(Although
you could emulate the effect of course with some mod_rewrite.)
What is the proper way to indicate the next chunk of articles in
the feed? Is it [EMAIL PROTECTED] and if so what value for related?
Where would someone put the offset?
If this is not a good place for general Atom questions, please
tell me which forum is more appropriate.
Mark Nottingham wrote:
My .02, FWIW, and off the top of my head;
I think this is a well-intentioned effort, but at the wrong end of the
process. The market (i.e., users and implementors) should have a go at
sorting out at what's common/prevalent enough to merit this sort of
thing; having a
10 matches
Mail list logo
