I said:
> I might have misinterpreted your comment, but I'm arguing with Tim for
> saying that SEE's CAN contain relative refs and no clarifification is
> needed, and with you for saying that SEE's CANNOT contain relative
> refs and no clarification is needed. There's a word for that :)
I overs
Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 11:12:30 PM, you wrote:
> Dave: I think I see what you're getting at... correct me if I'm wrong.
> So I decide that my aggregator is going to look for unknown Simple
> Extensions in Atom feeds and display them as a table of name/value
> pairs at the bottom of every e
Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 11:33:46 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 8/10/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I think that it is pretty clear, but as Tim disagrees, I think that
>> this is a good indication that we need clarification.
> I think it's good indication that you've argued wi
On 8/10/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that it is pretty clear, but as Tim disagrees, I think that
> this is a good indication that we need clarification.
I think it's good indication that you've argued with everyone, no
matter what they say. I'm strongly opposed to adding
Dave: I think I see what you're getting at... correct me if I'm wrong.
So I decide that my aggregator is going to look for unknown Simple
Extensions in Atom feeds and display them as a table of name/value
pairs at the bottom of every entry. And during the display process,
I'm going to run a regex
Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 1:34:44 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
> The problem could hypothetically arise when someone extracts
> properties from the foreign markup, stuffs them in a tuple store, and
> then when the software that knows what to do with comes along and
> retrieves it and recognizes the r
Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 1:30:54 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 8/9/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Publishers should expect that relative refs used in atom:link will
>> work, but publishers should expect that relative refs used in Simple
>> Extensions will break.
> Disagree
Sorry to note the obvious, but does this not sound so much like a
good reason we should
have engineered atom to *be* RDF? Is this not exactly one of the many
problems that RDF
sets out to solve?
Henry Story
On 10 Aug 2005, at 02:34, Tim Bray wrote:
On Aug 9, 2005, at 5:11 PM, David Powel
Tim Bray wrote:
Sounds like implementor's-guide material to me.
1
- James
On 8/9/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And, to whoever said relative references are "fragile": Wrong. When
> you have to move bales of web content around from one place to
> another, and just supposing hypothetically that you have internal
> links, relative references are robust, absolu
On 8/9/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Publishers should expect that relative refs used in atom:link will
> work, but publishers should expect that relative refs used in Simple
> Extensions will break.
Disagree. We have no idea what people will do with this, or where they
will be
On Aug 9, 2005, at 5:11 PM, David Powell wrote:
No, we just need to warn publishers (and extension authors) that the
base URI of Simple Extension elements is not significant, and that
they must not expect it to be preserved.
Either the software understands the foreign markup, in which case it
Tuesday, August 9, 2005, 11:22:14 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> What are we going to do, outlaw strings that happen to look like
> relative references?
No, we just need to warn publishers (and extension authors) that the
base URI of Simple Extension elements is not significant, and that
they must n
On 8/9/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If I'm wrong, and the rationale behind Simple Extensions isn't
> important...
Sorry, I don't buy this. You're wrong, but the rationale is important. :)
What are we going to do, outlaw strings that happen to look like
relative references? If yo
I still believe that relative URIs shouldn't exist in Simple Extension
constructs [1]. I think that the lack of rationale for their being 2-3
classes of extension construct is proving to be harmful.
Prior to the introduction of Section 6, Atom pretty much said you can
include any foreign markup
15 matches
Mail list logo
