On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:36:02AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
> let's assume myns: is declared. Then why not
>
> icon-uri
Apologies to all - this is what we tried first, but there must have
been a typo or something, because the feed validator started shouting
at us. I've just checked again, and al
On Sep 11, 2006, at 7:45 AM, James Aylett wrote:
Feed Validator gets upset with extension attributes - is it wrong?
Be specific, please? -Tim
On Sep 11, 2006, at 4:27 AM, James Aylett wrote:
We've run across a situation where we want to annotate an atom:icon
with a title. Currently we're doing the following, as something that
Feed Validator is happy with, but doesn't feel right:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:09:27AM -0700, James M Snell wrote:
> atom:icon is defined as:
>
>atomIcon = element atom:icon {
> atomCommonAttributes,
> (atomUri)
>}
>
> atomCommonAttributes is defined as:
>
>atomCommonAttributes =
> attribute xml:base { atomUri }?,
atom:icon is defined as:
atomIcon = element atom:icon {
atomCommonAttributes,
(atomUri)
}
atomCommonAttributes is defined as:
atomCommonAttributes =
attribute xml:base { atomUri }?,
attribute xml:lang { atomLanguageTag }?,
undefinedAttribute*
The Validato
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:27:27AM -0700, James M Snell wrote:
> Using extension attributes is a perfectly legitimate solution. The one
> drawback is that not all implementations will support 'em.
That's not a problem, to be honest - we have (amongst other things) a
Flash 'player' for the atom
Using extension attributes is a perfectly legitimate solution. The one
drawback is that not all implementations will support 'em.
- James
James Aylett wrote:
> We've run across a situation where we want to annotate an atom:icon
> with a title. Currently we're doing the following, as something t
We've run across a situation where we want to annotate an atom:icon
with a title. Currently we're doing the following, as something that
Feed Validator is happy with, but doesn't feel right:
--
uri:to/icon
My icon
title
-
