On 29 Jan 2006, at 16:47, Danny Ayers wrote:
fyi, Chimezie has a blog post [1] including the mapping below between
Atom as interpreted by Mark Pilgrim's UFP (so it'll also work for
anyRSS) to RDF.
[snip]
I don't quite understand what is going on in that blog post.
At some point it'll
Quoting Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The mail below is from the WordPress list, they're discussing
including stylesheet references in Atom docs. Have we got anything
like best practices or more palatable workarounds for these
circumstances? (i.e. in addition to using application/atom+xml)
* Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-30 16:50]:
From: Pete Prodoehl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
That's why I eventually gave up using application/rss+xml and
switched to text/xml for RSS. Maybe it's time to do the same for
Atom?
Ugh. Why does everyone insist on the `text/xml` albatross? Use
+1. Serving atom up at application/xml is perfectly acceptable and will
render in the browser. Look at Sam Ruby's feed as an example.
http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/index.atom
- James
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Quoting Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The mail below is from the WordPress
Sorry for being away for a while. I am back on this issue. We had
narrowed in on this quite well. It should be RFC time real soon.
On 24 Dec 2005, at 07:25, James Holderness wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
I think you have not quite grasped the point my graph was trying to
make. Perhaps I did
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:23 AM, James M Snell wrote:
+1. Serving atom up at application/xml is perfectly acceptable
It is *not*. Atom has a registered Internet media type (application/
atom+xml); using anything else is a bug. -Tim
David House wrote:
2) Atom support isn't there. Firefox and Konqueror (the browsers I
tested in) get scared off by Atom's mime type and prompt the user to
download it. They don't recognise it as XML, so they don't transform
it. We have two options here: give up or serve as text/xml (I
Thomas Broyer wrote:
...
(and if possible click on a link to lead them to the
site's browser-dedicated pages); those people should just use a
rel=nofollow on the direct links to their feeds.
I don't think that means what you think it means. At least, if you
mean for search engines not to
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:23 AM, James M Snell wrote:
+1. Serving atom up at application/xml is perfectly acceptable
It is *not*. Atom has a registered Internet media type (application/
atom+xml); using anything else is a bug. -Tim
Here's my 'best effort' suggestion
John Panzer wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
It is *not*. Atom has a registered Internet media type (application/
atom+xml); using anything else is a bug. -Tim
It's either a bug or an intentional downgrade designed to meet practical
requirements before strict technical requirements. I agree that
The mail below is from the WordPress list, they're discussing
including stylesheet references in Atom docs. Have we got anything
like best practices or more palatable workarounds for these
circumstances? (i.e. in addition to using application/atom+xml)
-- Forwarded message --
On Jan 30, 2006, at 12:57 PM, John Panzer wrote:
In other words, the application/xml content is a fallback for when
users, despite our best efforts, end up looking at XML content
inside a web browser. I'd also be happy to make this behaviior
browser-dependent so that we serve
2006/1/30, John Panzer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
(and if possible click on a link to lead them to the
site's browser-dedicated pages); those people should just use a
rel=nofollow on the direct links to their feeds.
I don't think that means what you think it means. At least, if you
mean for
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:23 AM, James M Snell wrote:
+1. Serving atom up at application/xml is perfectly acceptable
It is *not*. Atom has a registered Internet media type (application/
atom+xml); using anything else is a bug. -Tim
I'm not sure I would stand on principle
Henry Story wrote:
Just re-reading your mail I think you make a good point that perhaps
translation is the wrong word to use. We would like something more
abstract such as otherLanguageVersion. This made me think that the
word we want is alternate. And then looking at the spec again I
found the
* Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-01-30 20:15]:
On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:23 AM, James M Snell wrote:
+1. Serving atom up at application/xml is perfectly acceptable
It is *not*. Atom has a registered Internet media type
(application/ atom+xml); using anything else is a bug. -Tim
I don’t know that
Henry Story wrote:
Presumably one would need to add an x:feed=http://mydomain.com/feed;
attribute for translations of entries that appear in other feeds.
Actually I was thinking just a regular href and type. For example:
link type=application/atom+xml
href=http://mydomain.com/feed;
David House wrote:
We have two options here: give up or serve as text/xml (I guess
the latter won't be too popular). Really, browsers should recognise
application/atom+xml as something they can parse as XML and do so.
I can't understand why so many people want to prevent the browser from
James Holderness wrote:
David House wrote:
We have two options here: give up or serve as
text/xml (I guess
the latter won't be too popular). Really, browsers should recognise
application/atom+xml as something they can parse as XML and do so.
I can't understand why so
19 matches
Mail list logo
