Re: Evangelism, etc.

On 7/16/05, Walter Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But there is a point buried under all that. What are the changes required > to support Atom? It looks complicated, but how hard is it? Here is a shot > at that information. Thanks Walter, this is good... > For publishers, you need to be

Re: Evangelism, etc.

On 7/16/05, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/16/05, Danny Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Second - I just read 3 reviews of Atom (linked from Dave Winer's blog) > I found the criticism pathetic. Well, yes, but you're more familiar with the reality than most people that are

Re: Evangelism, etc.

* A. Pagaltzis wrote: >I like both versions for different reasons. Thanks, of course, >for providing a HTML rendition – I, too, have to say I find the >ASCII versions very 1989. (I use rfc.net to read RFCs so there is >at least a modicum of formatting and actual, you know, links.) There is http:/

Re: Evangelism, etc.

* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-16 19:50]: > There is an HTML version of the spec here: http://atompub.org/. > It was there when Danny sent his email, so I'm not sure what > all the whinging is about. I like both versions for different reasons. Thanks, of course, for providing a HTML

Re: Evangelism, etc.

On 7/16/05, Julian Reschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > http://dannyayers.com/atom/draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.xhtml > > ... > > Just run the XML version of the spec through rfc2629toXhtml.xslt > (). There is an HTML versio

Re: Evangelism, etc.

Danny Ayers wrote: If I could distract folks from the champagne and crudities for a moment: First - I just received a rewrite of the spec draft in nicely-styled XHTML 1.0, from someone (who wishes to remain anonymous) who refers to the IETF docs as "so 1989" - http://dannyayers.com/atom/dr

Re: Evangelism, etc.

--On July 16, 2005 11:16:44 AM -0400 Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found the criticism pathetic. A little lame, at least. You can't add precision and interoperability with innovation and extension. But there is a point buried under all that. What are the changes required to suppo

Re: Evangelism, etc.

On 7/16/05, Danny Ayers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Second - I just read 3 reviews of Atom (linked from Dave Winer's blog) > containing significant criticism, much of it valid. However the target > of these posts wasn't Atom itself, but the 'RSS 2.0 and Atom Compared' > doc (on the Wiki/Tim's sn

Evangelism, etc.

If I could distract folks from the champagne and crudities for a moment: First - I just received a rewrite of the spec draft in nicely-styled XHTML 1.0, from someone (who wishes to remain anonymous) who refers to the IETF docs as "so 1989" - http://dannyayers.com/atom/draft-ietf-atompub-form