Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Walter Underwood wrote:
--On August 30, 2005 1:49:57 AM -0400 Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has
proposed
extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve got folk
who are
proposing
Henry Story wrote:
Is the mixed format case really possible? Last time I looked there
were problems,
such as different tags using attributes with the same name but with
different
semantics. I thought we were close last time I looked, but not quite
there.
It seems feasible for a
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Dan Brickley wrote:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/a1.xml
`Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9`. Hurray...
I could fix that... question is, to what? :)
The Atom spec says Atom docs are identified using the Atom media type, but
I
Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
Dan Brickley wrote:
Let me emphasise that I'm not claiming these Atom docs are reasonably
interpreted as RDF. Just that they seem to, by happy coincidence as
it were, at least
share a syntax with RDF. The intepretation of this syntactic state of
affairs is
up
* Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-23 15:48+1000]
On 23/5/05 3:22 PM, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Antone Roundy suggests:
+1 make atom:author plural
+1 keep atom:contributor
punt bylines to an extension
To me that sounds like the simplest thing that can
* James Aylett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-23 14:01+0100]
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 02:29:33PM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-23 13:40]:
What is the interop problem you are trying to avoid? You don't
just throw in a SHOULD NOT and say otherwise it
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-23 10:35-0400]
On 5/23/05, Dan Brickley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be good if Atom were clear on whether repetition of the
exact same name implies the two authors are distinct (eg. things
written by father/son pairings, where they have same
* James Aylett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-23 15:43+0100]
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 10:35:07AM -0400, Robert Sayre wrote:
It would be good if Atom were clear on whether repetition of the
exact same name implies the two authors are distinct (eg. things
written by father/son pairings,
* Walter Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-23 11:16-0700]
--On May 23, 2005 10:52:47 AM -0700 Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're worried, one good way to address the issue would be to say that
the semantics of this element are based on the Dublin Core's [dc:creator],
DC is
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-23 18:26-0400]
On 5/23/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23 May 2005, at 7:44 pm, Dan Brickley wrote:
What we have today is http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#H2
An entity primarily responsible for making the content
* Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-22 01:52-0400]
I'll be making a presentation on Tuesday which will include a slide on how
Atom improves on RSS. If you have any thoughts on this subject, I would
appreciate hearing them.
Which version of RSS? the RDF and non-RDF strands have pretty
* Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-05 18:35+0300]
On May 5, 2005, at 16:24, Walter Underwood wrote:
--On May 5, 2005 8:07:15 AM -0500 Mark Pilgrim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Not to be flippant, but we have one that's widely available. It's
called the Expires header.
You need
* Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-05 02:35+1000]
On 4/5/05 11:11 PM, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The autodiscovery spec is a reasonable interpretation of the *one
line* definition of the 'alternate' relation.
how is a feed of recent entries a substitute version for
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-04-07 17:22-0400]
Sam Ruby wrote:
Whether it is for accessibility, or for general usability, I want to
ensure that every entry has a textual, non-remote component to it.
+1
Yeah, but we can't really legislate that, can we? We are making
* Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-17 16:27-0800]
EDITORIAL:
There are a couple of places where we use uri in the markup,
specifically the atom:uri element (3.2.2) and the uri attribute of
atom:generator (4.2.5).
In both cases they're not actually URIs, they're IRIs, so the name
* Bjoern Hoehrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-18 11:13+0100]
* Tim Bray wrote:
There are a couple of places where we use uri in the markup,
specifically the atom:uri element (3.2.2) and the uri attribute of
atom:generator (4.2.5).
In both cases they're not actually URIs, they're IRIs,
* Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-03-18 08:41-0700]
On Friday, March 18, 2005, at 04:24 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
URIs and IRIs are the way we identify things
(on, in, to and for...) the Web. So web to me seems natural.
I think the question is which of these is meant by the web
* John Panzer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-02-06 13:58-0800]
Since an entry is identified uniquely by its atom:id (though it can have
different states at different times);
As I understand the Web, the REST concepts that underpin HTTP
are quite happy with their being multiple representations of
* Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-02-05 08:40-0800]
On Feb 5, 2005, at 5:36 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:21:50 -0500, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ordering of the element children of atom:feed element MUST NOT be
considered significant.
+1.
+1 - I don't
* Henry Story [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-31 16:25+0100]
On 31 Jan 2005, at 05:22, Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 30, 2005, at 7:10 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
The content of an Identity construct SHOULD NOT be dereferenced,
even when it comes from a
normally dereferencable scheme. There is
* Asbjørn Ulsberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-29 06:05+0100]
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:01:06 -0500, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I guess the question is whether we can and should outline HTML security
issues. I don't think we can or should.
Considering the large amount of
* Ray Slakinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-25 10:40-0500]
+1 from me, I'm happy to see this added!
+1 likewise to http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceEnclosuresAndPix
Dan
On 24-Jan-05, at 7:18 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
If there were no further discussion: Got no -1's, seems useful, needed
* Joe Gregorio [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-24 20:44-0500]
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:41:40 -0500, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joe Gregorio wrote:
+1 to the general Pace, but I would prefer to see
the 'Simple Extension' dropped. It adds a level of complexity
that isn't requried. and
* Henry Story [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-17 16:12+0100]
I have put up two pages (Paces) on the wiki.
One AtomOWL [1] just is a place to work on the latest RDF model of
Atom, and fulfill
the requirement that Atom have a model.
The Other AtomIsRDF [2] is a place to track the way for
* Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-09 01:42-0500]
Tim Bray wrote:
2. We are close to RSS2 feature-compatibility, we either adopt
image enclosure or make a conscious decision not to.
There are other bits of RSS2 that should be seriously considered --
even if they aren't widely
* Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-01-04 07:38-0800]
On Jan 4, 2005, at 1:39 AM, Henry Story wrote:
I was just looking closely at the atom:Person class [1] and found some
pretty arbitrary limitations:
- why should a Person only have one e-mail address?
- why should a Person only
26 matches
Mail list logo
