Mark Nottingham wrote:
My .02, FWIW, and off the top of my head;
I think this is a well-intentioned effort, but at the wrong end of the
process. The market (i.e., users and implementors) should have a go at
sorting out at what's common/prevalent enough to merit this sort of
thing; having a
Martin Duerst wrote:
At 07:04 05/10/03, Walter Underwood wrote:
>
>--On October 2, 2005 9:35:28 AM +0200 Anne van Kesteren
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Having a file and folder of the same name is not technically possible.
>(Although
>> you could emulate the effect of course with some mod_
Antone Roundy wrote:
On Oct 2, 2005, at 11:15 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I think this is a well-intentioned effort, but at the wrong end of
the process. The market (i.e., users and implementors) should have a
go at sorting out at what's common/prevalent enough to merit this
sort of thin
* Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-03 17:11]:
> The overhead of including multiple namespace declarations
> isn't going to be that great.
I am coming around to the view that it doesn’t offer anything
worthwhile. My own apprehension at lumping everything into a flat
space, which led me
On Oct 2, 2005, at 11:15 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I think this is a well-intentioned effort, but at the wrong end of
the process. The market (i.e., users and implementors) should have
a go at sorting out at what's common/prevalent enough to merit this
sort of thing; having a co-ordinated
I really like the ACE proposal, and I think the name is a good one
too :-)
It can't harm to have this option on the table now. No one is forced
to use it.
But I think it will have a few positive effects:
- proposals that use it will have a cool ace namespace name
- proposals that
At 07:04 05/10/03, Walter Underwood wrote:
>
>--On October 2, 2005 9:35:28 AM +0200 Anne van Kesteren
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Having a file and folder of the same name is not technically possible.
>(Although
>> you could emulate the effect of course with some mod_rewrite.)
>
>Namespaces
At 16:45 05/10/02, James M Snell wrote:
>
>http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom-extensions works for me... assuming, of
course, that Those-Who-Officially-Assign-Such-Things go along with it.
Tim and Paul know who to contact.
>The original .../ace URI was just a working thing pitched with full
knowled
My .02, FWIW, and off the top of my head;
I think this is a well-intentioned effort, but at the wrong end of
the process. The market (i.e., users and implementors) should have a
go at sorting out at what's common/prevalent enough to merit this
sort of thing; having a co-ordinated namespace
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, James M Snell wrote:
Justin Fletcher wrote:
Some questions spring to mind...
What should implementors do when both feed history and ace namespaced
elements with equivilent meanings are present - which of the two should
resolve this conflict ?
Same thing that implement
Justin Fletcher wrote:
Some questions spring to mind...
What should implementors do when both feed history and ace namespaced
elements with equivilent meanings are present - which of the two
should resolve this conflict ?
Same thing that implementors should do when they encounter any eleme
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, James M Snell wrote:
Bill de hÓra wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom
extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be
interesting to explore the creation of a "Common Extensions Namespace"
Bill de hÓra wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom
extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be
interesting to explore the creation of a "Common Extensions Namespace"
under which multiple standardized extens
James M Snell wrote:
> As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom
> extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be
> interesting to explore the creation of a "Common Extensions Namespace"
> under which multiple standardized extensions can be grouped
--On October 2, 2005 9:35:28 AM +0200 Anne van Kesteren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Having a file and folder of the same name is not technically possible.
> (Although
> you could emulate the effect of course with some mod_rewrite.)
Namespaces aren't files, only names. So the limitations of
+1, introducing something like this would pretty much negate the purpose
of the common namespace.
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
Quoting "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
No, I mean an element name prefix. So f.ex. your indexing
extension would have all its elements start with “idx-” or
“x-”
Quoting "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
No, I mean an element name prefix. So f.ex. your indexing
extension would have all its elements start with “idx-” or
“x-” or something whereas the comments one would use “thr-”
maybe.
It is either namespaces or this. As we have namespaces, we should
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-02 09:50]:
> >Might it be prudent to require of extensions that they define
> >a prefix for all their elements?
>
> If you're talking about namespace prefixes, I don't believe so
> as I don't think it would be something you could reasonably
> enforce.
Eric Scheid wrote:
On 2/10/05 3:54 PM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom
extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be
interesting to explore the creation of a "Common Extensions Namespace
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Hi James,
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-02 08:05]:
1. Introduction
The Atom Common Extensions Namespace is a single XML
Namespace with which standardized Atom 1.0 extensions MAY be
associated.
This “MAY” seems really out of place here. Not
http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom-extensions works for me... assuming, of
course, that Those-Who-Officially-Assign-Such-Things go along with it.
The original .../ace URI was just a working thing pitched with full
knowledge that it would likely change to something better. (I positively
stink at com
Quoting James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The Atom Common Extensions Namespace
"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom/ace";
It should probably be something like
"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom-extensions
Having a file and folder of the same name is not technically possible.
(Although
you could
Hi James,
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-02 08:05]:
> 1. Introduction
>
>The Atom Common Extensions Namespace is a single XML
>Namespace with which standardized Atom 1.0 extensions MAY be
>associated.
This “MAY” seems really out of place here. Not everything is a
nail
On 2/10/05 3:54 PM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom
> extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be
> interesting to explore the creation of a "Common Extensions Namespace"
> under which mult
As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom
extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be
interesting to explore the creation of a "Common Extensions Namespace"
under which multiple standardized extensions can be grouped. I've
written an initial
25 matches
Mail list logo
