On Feb 2, 2005, at 12:15 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
1.) A web forum, where one post serves as the root of a collection of
other posts.
HTML--
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/bloggerDev/
Atom 0.3, root posts only--
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/bloggerDev/feed/topics.xml
On 4/2/05 1:15 PM, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3.) A List Status feed, where the only updates consist of one
collection replacing another.
RSS2 --
http://rss.netflix.com/Top100RSS
background info--
Potential solutions that occur to me:
1. Ignore the problem
2. PaceEntriesElement could handle this
3. PaceFeedRecursive could handle this
4. PaceAtomHeadInEntry could handle this
5. PaceAggregationDocument could handle this
I honestly can't say which I prefer. Would anyone like to
On the other hand, the original plan was to publish both specs at
the same time, which I still think is a good idea.
Do we think there will be any dependencies in the other direction?
That is, when we work on the protocol, will we need to add things
to feed or entry? If there is a reasonable
On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
We are assuming that Atom will need extensions for new applications,
but it should not need extensions for editing blog entries.
I'd have to disagree. I don't think it inappropriate for elements that
exist for use by the
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 22:05:17 +0100, Julian Reschke
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One alternative I'd like to mention is to remove all references to the
protocol spec from the document spec including the service URI
definitions, and to move the latter as extension elements into the
protocol spec.
Walter Underwood wrote:
Hmm, I wasn't clear. While we are working on the protocol, will we
learn things that need to be applied to the format? The protocol is
an application of Atom. There will be lots of others, but this one is
core, by definition. Previous feed formats have not had an editing
--On Wednesday, February 02, 2005 11:53:29 AM -0700 Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
We are assuming that Atom will need extensions for new applications,
but it should not need extensions for editing blog entries.
I'd have
On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 12:33 PM, Walter Underwood wrote:
--On Wednesday, February 02, 2005 11:53:29 AM -0700 Antone Roundy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday, February 2, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
We are assuming that Atom will need extensions for new
Hi,
(I raised this when reviewing draft 05 already, but I think this topic
deserves it's own thread)
Currently, the format spec has a normative reference to the protocol
spec (and also defines elements for the service URIs, for instance,
atom:introspection).
As far as I understand the IETF
On Feb 1, 2005, at 1:05 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Currently, the format spec has a normative reference to the protocol
spec (and also defines elements for the service URIs, for instance,
atom:introspection).
I suggest this can and should be removed. --Tim
Tim Bray wrote:
On Feb 1, 2005, at 1:05 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Currently, the format spec has a normative reference to the protocol
spec (and also defines elements for the service URIs, for instance,
atom:introspection).
I suggest this can and should be removed.
Agree.
Robert Sayre
Robert Sayre wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
On Feb 1, 2005, at 1:05 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
Currently, the format spec has a normative reference to the protocol
spec (and also defines elements for the service URIs, for instance,
atom:introspection).
I suggest this can and should be removed.
Agree.
13 matches
Mail list logo
