On May 4, 2005, at 02:56, David Nesting wrote:
Plus, feed is kind of application-specific. What about related?
It's a spec for discovering *feeds*. It is proper to have an
app-specific rel value to avoid feed-specific apps downloading non-feed
related documents.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL
On 4/5/05 3:52 PM, fantasai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'feed' is not really defining a /relation/, it's defining a sort of
meta-content-type... But I would much prefer that to forcing 'alternate'
on non-'alternate' links.
instead of feed, consider updates, which gets closer to the gist of the
Randy Charles Morin wrote:
+1 to adding lang as an attribute to link
thanks Robert
link lang='en' ...
The HTML and XHTML specification already define that.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
HTTP/1.1
Accept: application/atom+xml
...
You don't have to change the URL--just list only the format you want in
the Accept header. If the autodiscovery link was lying/mistaken and
that format really isn't available at that URL, you should get a 406
(not acceptable) response.
On 5/4/05, fantasai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who's to say we can't overload it a little for this case?
You are not writing the HTML 4.01 spec, you're writing an autodiscovery
spec that takes advantage of the syntax *and semantics* given in HTML 4.
Your specification should be consistent
On 5/4/05, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/05, fantasai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who's to say we can't overload it a little for this case?
You are not writing the HTML 4.01 spec, you're writing an autodiscovery
spec that takes advantage of the syntax *and semantics
Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:43:38 +0200, Eric Scheid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
instead of feed, consider updates, which gets closer to the gist
of the sense
No. To me 'Updates' signifies that something is 'updated'. Even posting
new content falls outside of that
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/4/05, fantasai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who's to say we can't overload it a little for this case?
You are not writing the HTML 4.01 spec, you're writing an autodiscovery
spec that takes advantage of the syntax *and semantics* given in HTML 4.
Your specification should
/types.html#h-6.12
How is a link from the top of my homepage to my friend's weblog feed
designating a substitute version for the document in which the link
occurs?
I don't know, but I'm not sure why you think that's what the
autodiscovery spec endorses. Is there some part of the spec that
endorses
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 the document in
which the link occurs when that document is some
Robert Sayre wrote:
The autodiscovery spec is a reasonable interpretation of the *one
line* definition of the 'alternate' relation. It is not contradictory.
But a feed is not a substitute version of an archive page as most
archived entries are not in the feed anymore.
That said, I'm totally
how is a feed of recent entries a substitute version for the document in
which the link occurs when that document is some blog post long since
dropped out of the feed?
Eric: A devil's advocacy moment... if I change the published date for
the document to today's date, it will suddenly spring
* 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
Dan Brickley wrote:
* 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
On May 4, 2005, at 11:02 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
I think it would be a mistake to see this as an opportunity to invent
a supremely capable and expressive autodiscovery spec. I've seen
mozilla, safari, NNW do autodiscovery. I'm sure bots from PubSub,
Technorati, Yahoo, etc do it as well. We should
/path-to-the-feed HTTP/1.1
Accept: application/atom+xml
...
You don't have to change the URL--just list only the format you want in
the Accept header. If the autodiscovery link was lying/mistaken and
that format really isn't available at that URL, you should get a 406
(not acceptable) response
Antone Roundy wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2005, at 12:59 PM, fantasai wrote:
Again, my friend's blog feed is not an Atom version of /my/ web page;
linking to it as alternate would be wrong.
To me, this raises a red flag, suggesting that using an autodiscovery
link from your web page to your
Antone Roundy wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2005, at 12:59 PM, fantasai wrote:
Again, my friend's blog feed is not an Atom version of /my/ web page;
linking to it as alternate would be wrong.
To me, this raises a red flag, suggesting that using an autodiscovery
link from your web page to your
On 5/4/05, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark's draft does an excellent job of documenting that reality.
+1
-joe
--
Joe Gregoriohttp://bitworking.org
fantasai wrote:
Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:43:38 +0200, Eric Scheid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
instead of feed, consider updates, which gets closer to the gist
of the sense
No. To me 'Updates' signifies that something is 'updated'. Even
posting new content falls
fantasai wrote:
Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:43:38 +0200, Eric Scheid
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
instead of feed, consider updates, which gets closer to the gist
of the sense
No. To me 'Updates' signifies that something is 'updated'. Even
posting new content falls
Eric Scheid wrote:
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 the document in
which the link occurs
On Wednesday, May 4, 2005, at 04:49 PM, Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma wrote:
Eric Scheid wrote:
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
On 5/5/05 4:02 AM, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
The autodiscovery spec is a reasonable interpretation of the *one
line* definition of the 'alternate' relation. It is not contradictory.
But a feed is not a substitute version of an archive page as most
archived
On 5/5/05 4:17 AM, Dan Brickley [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 the document in
which the link occurs when that document is some
an autodiscovery
link from your web page to your friend's feed is not what autodiscovery
is intended for.
I agree.
However, using a link from an archive page is common practice (very!), but
is one that would confound the use of Atom Entry Documents as
@rel='alternate'.
e.
Eric Scheid wrote:
On 5/5/05 4:38 AM, Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you have some example that's more generally applicable?
in practice, people will put a link to the feed from which this page, and
others like it, are likely to be found, into entry only pages.
We have published profiles for both license and nofollow:
http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/RelLicense
http://developers.technorati.com/wiki/RelNoFollow
feel free to use them...
On May 3, 2005, at 11:16 PM, Mark Pilgrim wrote:
On 5/4/05, Henri Sivonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
No you don't.
, 03 May 2005 18:52:59 +0200, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.txt
1) Change the attribute value for the rel from alternate to feed,
or some similar wording. A feed is not always an alternate of the
HTML document in which it occurs
On 5/5/05 5:36 AM, fantasai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- specify that UAs MAY also recognize the rel=alternate and
type=application/atom+xml combination as an autodiscoverable Atom
feed even if 'feed' is not among the rel values,
and that UA should check that the representation
Mark Pilgrim agreed to turn his Atom autodiscovery draft into a WG
draft, and has done so, see:
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.txt
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.html
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01
Tim Bray wrote:
Mark Pilgrim agreed to turn his Atom autodiscovery draft into a WG
draft, and has done so, see:
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.txt
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.html
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub
On 5/3/05, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I scanned them and nothing objectionable leapt out at me, but please,
could a few more people also have a look?
I've never liked the rules in section 6. For example, when presenting
a single option from multiple link elements, UAs should be
Tim Bray wrote:
Assuming no errors, or rather that any errors we turn up are fixed, are
there any objections to us submitting this I-D as a product of the
Atompub WG? -Tim
How do we manage a WG product produced and edited by a non-WG member?
This isn't an objection, btw, I'm just curious about
On 3 May 2005, at 5:52 pm, Tim Bray wrote:
I scanned them and nothing objectionable leapt out at me, but
please, could a few more people also have a look?
The only thing I noticed was the href attribute definition:
The value MAY be a relative URI, and if so, clients MUST resolve it
to a full
-Original Message-
From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:18 PM
To: atom-syntax Syntax'
Subject: Re: Autodiscovery
Tim Bray wrote:
Assuming no errors, or rather that any errors we turn up
are fixed, are
there any objections to us
On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:52:59 +0200, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.txt
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.html
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.xml
Although Mark's
On May 3, 2005, at 10:33 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
I've privately asked Tim and Paul the same question. Though section
6.3 of
RFC 2418 doesn't specifically say that a document editor MUST be a
member of
the working group, the situation appears so obvious that it shouldn't
need
to be stated.
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 07:42:55PM +0200, Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
1) Change the attribute value for the rel from alternate to feed, or
some similar wording. A feed is not always an alternate of the HTML
document in which it occurs. Suggested replacement text:
I'm all for avoiding
On 4/5/05 3:42 AM, Arve Bersvendsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Change the attribute value for the rel from alternate to feed, or
...
2) I am not too fond of requiring a type attribute
I suspect the requirement for @type was because of the choice of 'alternate'
as the trigger, and thus if (1)
+1 to adding lang as an attribute to link
thanks Robert
link lang='en' ...
+1 to not Atom specific
thanks Arve
link title='RSS'
Randy Charles Morin
http://www.kbcafe.com
Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
First, I am not too fond of making an autodiscovery protocol Atom-only
It's only Atom-only in that it doesn't attempt to dictate things outside
the WG's charter: as it's written now, it's just a well-specified exact
equivalent of the existing RSS autodiscovery spec-blog
Randy Charles Morin wrote:
+1 to not Atom specific
thanks Arve
link title='RSS'
-1 to anything that even remotely implies any significance to @title
Phil Ringnalda
Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:52:59 +0200, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-ietf-atompub-autodiscovery-01.txt
1) Change the attribute value for the rel from alternate to feed,
or some similar wording. A feed is not always an alternate
?
You are not writing the HTML 4.01 spec, you're writing an autodiscovery
spec that takes advantage of the syntax *and semantics* given in HTML 4.
Your specification should be consistent with HTML 4, not contradictory
to it.
~fantasai
101 - 145 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
