On Feb 9, 2007, at 9:23 PM, John Panzer wrote:
Does anyone know of any issues with placing Yahoo! Media RSS
extensions (which seem to fit the requirments for Atom extensions
to me) inside an Atom feed? Secondarily
A year or two ago there was discussion of doing an IETF working group
to
yeah what Bob said
I'm not sure it is ideal, but it seems the closest to consensus we're
ever going to get.
+1
On Dec 14, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Rogers Cadenhead wrote:
--- Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Define ;type=feed and ;type=entry as optional
parameters. (i.e. get them
defined,
On Dec 10, 2006, at 11:19 AM, James M Snell wrote:
Option B) New Entry media type
application/atom.entry+xml
+1
I presume the whole reason we need this is that *existing* parsers
are blindly assuming that application/atom+xml means a feed
document. If that is an invalid assumption,
On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Kyle Marvin wrote:
I see the separation but I'm still missing a clear justifiication
for it. I don't see content-type as having anything to do with the
audience. It's about what media format you'd get back if you
dereference the href and rel is about how you
Hi James,
On Dec 1, 2006, at 11:25 AM, James M Snell wrote:
You're right that the differentiation in the content-type is of less
importance but without it there's no way for me to unambiguously
indicate that a resource has both an Atom Feed representation and an
Atom Entry representation. The
Hi Antoine,
On Nov 30, 2006, at 10:21 AM, Antone Roundy wrote:
Summary of thoughts and questions:
Thanks -- this is incredibly helpful. However, might I suggest a
couple more options?
6) Change expectations, not the spec.
Consumers must poll the feed to inspect the metadata, and
A server that instead provides light-weight query interfaces as you describe, or guides the client into the content, does not work with a client that doesn't do HTML (a CalDAV, WebDAV or possibly Atom authoring client); correct?My understanding (for what it is worth) is that REST *requires*
Hi Robert,
While I'm not entirely thrilled with James, and I believe you provide
some useful perspective,
if you think it is appropriate and ethical to respond by posting
private email to the list, I must reluctantly conclude that this list
is better off without you.
Sincerely,
Ernest
I've had a hard time following this thread, but for what its worth I
buy Tim's reasoning.
+1
On May 23, 2006, at 12:26 PM, James M Snell wrote:
+1. What Tim said.
- James
Tim Bray wrote:
On May 18, 2006, at 6:15 AM, David Powell wrote:
What I see as a problem is that reasonable
Hi Henry,
On Nov 23, 2005, at 3:22 AM, Henry Story wrote:
A few improvements of atom over directories is that our feed can
contain not just the current version of an entry, but all previous
versions as well, which I think I remember was a feature supported
by the vms file system.
10 matches
Mail list logo
