> Web Apps 1.0 is already defining it
> However, since the Web Applications draft already covers all of these
> issues fairly well, I believe it is unnecessary for this draft to be
> resurrected. Instead, a few of the good ideas from this draft should be
> integrated into the WA1 spec.
Web A
> Atom processors need to know how to construct a full XHTML 1.x
> document from the Atom entry if they co-operate with an XHTML 1.x
> processing module that wants to see full documents.
It seems that... only extremely few of atom processors can do so at the
moment... (Actually I am not sure
James M Snell wrote:
Pace to put autodiscovery back in play [1]
Resubmit the Autodiscovery Draft[2] with no changes and submit for
consideration as a Proposed Standard.
I don't think that's a good idea for several reasons, primarily because
feed autodiscovery isn't just for Atom, it's for RS
On 24/11/06 9:28 AM, "Thomas Broyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Being a syndication feed" is expressed by the media type, there's no
> need for a 'rel' value.
I disagree, but for slightly different reasons. Consider these two links:
They are both Atom Feed Documents, but the forme
On 23 Nov 2006, at 14:28, Thomas Broyer wrote:
"The feed keyword indicates that the referenced document is a
syndication feed.
"Being a syndication feed" is expressed by the media type, there's no
need for a 'rel' value.
The only reason for such a 'rel' is to replace the "contents" value i
I've noticed that draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.txt doesn't mention
XML namespaces and tag prefixes. XHTML can get even more complex than memo
suggests:
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"; rel="alternate"
type="application/atom+xml" href="bar">
My suggestion is that instead of specify
2006/11/23, Henri Sivonen:
The latest WA 1.0 draft covers this as follows:
"If the alternate keyword is used with the type attribute set to the
value application/rss+xml or the value application/atom+xml, then the
user agent must treat the link as it would if it had the feed keyword
specified
Very nice.
One thing I like about the current atom spec, is that the link
relations are in fact urls. The link relations are equivalent to the
urls generated by appending "http://www.iana.org/assignments/
relation/" to the "alternate", "self", ... rel="..." strings.
This is very nice, in
The latest WA 1.0 draft covers this as follows:
"If the alternate keyword is used with the type attribute set to the
value application/rss+xml or the value application/atom+xml, then the
user agent must treat the link as it would if it had the feed keyword
specified as well."
http://whatw
On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 09:10:57PM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-19 18:35]:
> > The spec can be changed, it's just not a great idea to do so
> > until we get a critical mass of issues that can't seem to be
> > adequately worked around.
>
> Is anyone keep
FWIW, with the permission of the WG chairs and the previous editor, I
just resubmitted the atom discovery draft as an individual submission.
Regardless of how things might have unfolded previously, the spec is
open for discussion; however, I only intend to make changes that have a
clear consensus.
11 matches
Mail list logo
