Sean Lyndersay wrote:
> Thanks James. I’ve filed bugs in our bug tracking database for each of
> the issues that came up in the feed validator (except for flagging
> /atom:*/ items, since these are a correct use of RSS 2.0 extension
> namespaces).
Re the flagging of atom: elements: this was indee
Thanks James. I’ve filed bugs in our bug tracking database
for each of the issues that came up in the feed validator (except for flagging atom:*
items, since these are a correct use of RSS 2.0 extension namespaces).
Sean
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On B
On 2/27/06, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmm. If I'm reading that right, I wouldn't want to organize mywebsites that way.
Nor would I. I wouldn't advocate and actual directory structure as this, and instead a simple disection of the URI/IRI that would then be mapped to the proper
On Feb 27, 2006, at 8:29 AM, M. David Peterson wrote:
When you say "what it was designed for" can you be specific as to
what that definition is?
Well, we failed to gain consensus on that. Some of us wanted it to
be used only for links intended to be traversed by the user (like the
element
For anyone interested, I created a validated Atom feed that
(http://softwareme.com/ie7test.xml)
exhibits the problems with IE's refactor as RSS2. After hitting the IE7
Subscribe button, the feed is then converted to RSS2 (http://softwareme.com/ie7testsubscribed.xml),
which doesn't validate
James Yenne wrote:
>[snip]
> correct doctype. Perhaps the CSS2 "media" attribute, if added to Atom links
> would provide this cue about the format... E.g. media="print, handheld".
>
Take a look at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-link-extensions-02.txt
It's complete
I think what you're asking is, what's the resulting document's type or
!DOCTYPE? In my case, the xsl supplied in the xml-stylesheet directive does
the transformation and the resulting document is (strict) xhtml with the
correct doctype. Perhaps the CSS2 "media" attribute, if added to Atom links
To be a bit more specific to your point:
One problem with this is that there's no machine readable way withoutan extension attribute to indicate what format the stylesheet is
going to transform the data to.
It seems to me that this could potentially be handled quite easily with the URI/IRI and no
When you say "what it was designed for" can you be specific as to what that definition is? Sorry, new to the conversation, but I have particular interest in this topic as it is my belief that the URI/IRI can be used to imply a lot of information that is otherwise hidden from view, or uses more com
On Feb 26, 2006, at 9:10 PM, James Yenne wrote:
My feeds contain a generic xml-stylesheet, which formats the feed
for display along with a feed-specific css. Since xsl processors
do not have a standard way to pass parameters to xsl stylesheets, I
provide this feed-specific css to the xsl p
10 matches
Mail list logo
