On May 15, 2005, at 10:24 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
On May 14, 2005, at 11:02 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
The atom:content element either contains or links to the
full content of the entry. An atom:entry containing an
atom:content element MUST be a complete representation of
the entry.
-1
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
The atom:content element either contains or links to the
full content of the entry. An atom:entry containing an
atom:content element MUST be a complete representation of
the entry. If the atom:entry is not intended to be a
complete representation of the entry,
On May 14, 2005, at 11:02 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
The atom:content element either contains or links to the
full content of the entry. An atom:entry containing an
atom:content element MUST be a complete representation of
the entry.
-1
What does complete mean? This is untestable and
* Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-15 17:10]:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
The atom:content element either contains or links to the
full content of the entry. An atom:entry containing an
atom:content element MUST be a complete representation of
the entry. If the atom:entry is
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Personally, I think the spec should try to make an attempt to
nail this down. Maybe the right approach would rather be
something along these lines?
An atom:entry MUST NOT have both an atom:content and an
atom:summary element with identical content.
You're right, +1 to
On 15 May 2005, at 10:16 pm, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
An atom:entry MUST NOT have both an atom:content and an
atom:summary element with identical content.
-1
It might solve this exact problem, but in the general case it makes
no sense. Let's say I put the first sentence of each post in
* Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-16 01:10]:
Let's say I put the first sentence of each post in
atom:summary. What happens when I post a one sentence entry?
Then you must not put it in the summary. And this is my opinion
independent of the pace.
An even half-way intelligent user agent would
On 16/5/05 7:16 AM, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An atom:entry MUST NOT have both an atom:content and an
atom:summary element with identical content.
+1
* Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-16 01:15]:
An atom:entry MUST NOT have both an atom:content and an
atom:summary element with identical content.
-1
It might solve this exact problem, but in the general case it
makes no sense.
Besides my point in the other mail, I wanted to
On Mon, 16 May 2005 01:16:21 +0200, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
An even half-way intelligent user agent would do something like
display a read more link or button when it displays a summary,
to alert the user that there is more to be read, either at the
atom:[EMAIL
* James Tauber [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-16 05:45]:
I believe it is reasonable to:
1. include a summary element in my full-content feed in
addition to the content element; and
Absolutely it is. F.ex, user agents could provide the summary in
addition to the title of an entry in a feed
://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceContentAndSummaryDistinct
+1
* Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-14 19:10]:
Clarifying this point is a good idea. However, The content of
atom:content MUST be a complete representation of the entry.
isn't quite right, because atom:content doesn't contain
thought it best to make this
explicit, hence:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceContentAndSummaryDistinct
I support the sentiment, but the way it's written is awful. We could
just change:
The atom:content element either contains or links to the content
of the entry
13 matches
Mail list logo
