On 5/6/05, Martin Duerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 11:50 05/05/06, Sam Ruby wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
+1
There are people who want to publish feeds without rel=alternate
links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to do
without strong reasons, as in loss of
At 11:50 05/05/06, Sam Ruby wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
+1
There are people who want to publish feeds without rel=alternate
links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to do
without strong reasons, as in loss of interoperability. I don't see the
reasons here as strong
Graham wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote:
FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to
do additional work:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html
Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous.
+1 to the Pace
+1 as well.
Graham wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote:
FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to
do additional work:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html
Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous.
+1 to the Pace
This Pace is
On 6 May 2005, at 1:26 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:
My concern is not that tools will need to be updated. My concern
is that tools won't know that they need to update. How will they
know that they need to update to handle a set of feeds that nobody
is currently providing?
How is this different to
+1
There are people who want to publish feeds without rel=alternate
links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to
do without strong reasons, as in loss of interoperability. I don't see
the reasons here as strong enough. -Tim
Tim Bray wrote:
+1
There are people who want to publish feeds without rel=alternate
links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to
do without strong reasons, as in loss of interoperability. I don't see
the reasons here as strong enough. -Tim
FYI: we have an instance
On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote:
FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool
to do additional work:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html
Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous.
+1 to the Pace
Graham
So, if accepted, we'd have 2 conflicting rules. The Pace needs an edit)
D'oh. You're right. I've edited the Pace, to just delete the MUST.
Robert Sayre
: Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
So, if accepted, we'd have 2 conflicting rules. The Pace needs an edit)
D'oh. You're right. I've edited the Pace, to just delete the MUST.
Robert Sayre
== Abstract ==
Remove the requirement for a feed-level link element.
== Status ==
Open
== Rationale ==
The requirement makes people jump through hoops for little gain, since
there is a strong incentive to provide the link if you have something.
Unlike entries, feeds are almost always
--On April 30, 2005 3:03:50 PM -0400 Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:link element
with a rel attribute value of alternate that has the same
combination of type and hreflang attribute values.
That actually specifies something
12 matches
Mail list logo
