On Feb 4, 2005, at 9:10 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
My interest is in simplification, not abstraction. For example,
the draft wastes a lot of text talking in the abstract about
various constructs rather than simply defining one element for
each of those constructs.
Person, Date, and Text constructs
Tim Bray wrote:
On reflection, I am growing very negative on almost all of the
Organization Paces, including FeedRecursive, PaceEntriesElement,
PaceCollection. Here's why: they represent to increase the level of
abstraction in Atom, and in my experience, when the goal is
interoperability
Graham wrote:
On 4 Feb 2005, at 2:37 am, Tim Bray wrote:
On the other hand, the notion that sometimes you have collections of
feeds is easy to understand, easy to verbalize, and widely evidenced
in practice (cf PubSub friends), if not perhaps widely seen outside
of geekland. So I think I'm +1
On 4/2/05 2:06 PM, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you removed the ability to have entries within the feeds in
aggregation documents, I'm in. PaceHeadInEntry covers a fundamentally
different task.
A collection of feeds would be something like a list of blogs about a
certain topic? You
On Feb 3, 2005, at 7:06 PM, Graham wrote:
On the other hand, the notion that sometimes you have collections of
feeds is easy to understand, easy to verbalize, and widely evidenced
in practice (cf PubSub friends), if not perhaps widely seen outside
of geekland. So I think I'm +1 on
:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Tim Bray
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 9:38 PM
To: Atom Syntax
Subject: On organization and abstraction
On reflection, I am growing very negative on almost all of the
Organization Paces, including FeedRecursive, PaceEntriesElement,
PaceCollection. Here's why
+1 - someone else made a comment about OPML which really hit the spot;
if you try to make a format do all things, it does most of them
badly...
On Feb 3, 2005, at 6:37 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On reflection, I am growing very negative on almost all of the
Organization Paces, including
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:08:43 -0500, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
So I think I'm +1 on PaceAggregationDocument. (And I think
if we adopted that we could certainly lose PaceHeadInEntry, right Bob?)
-1...
PaceAggregationDocument does not seem to me to
James Snell wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:08:43 -0500, Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
4. Massive changes need to be made to the specification when we
don't have a great deal of time left before we're supposed to be doing a
Last Call. This is dangerous.
+1. Big +1.
I really regret
On Thursday, February 3, 2005, at 09:08 PM, Bob Wyman wrote:
I see two non-compelling benefits to PaceAggregationDocument over
PaceHeadInEntry:
1. In the case where a feed will contain more than one entry from a
foreign feed, you only have to include the atom:head data once. Thus,
there would
10 matches
Mail list logo
