On 04/10/2005, at 7:07 PM, James Holderness wrote:
But isn't it at least worth mentioning something about this under
"Security Considerations"?
Good point; I'll try to come up with some text.
Also, a minor point I noticed while reading the draft: the
namespace prefix you use in most of t
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Probably the closest thing to what you want is this proposal:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-
history-04.txt
It has "previous", but not "next".
It just occurred to me when reading this message that there may be some
advantages to
Hi Alan,
Probably the closest thing to what you want is this proposal:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-
history-04.txt
It has "previous", but not "next".
Cheers,
On 03/10/2005, at 1:27 PM, Alan Gutierrez wrote:
What is the proper way to indicate
Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
>I'm trying to implement Atom support for KnoBot [1], the KnoBot CMS
>supports entries and feeds in multiple language with http-language
>negotiation.
>
>Reading the spec I'm not sure how an entry should be described in
>multiple language, more specifically how updates o
On 28 Sep 2005, at 14:48, Reto Bachmann-Gmür wrote:
[snip lots of interesting stuff, to get to later]
Note that the first two entries share the same value of atom:updated,
this is a SHOULD-Level violation of section 4.1.1. I think the spec
should allow multiple entries with the same timesta