Bill de hÓra wrote:
[[[
line 7, column 141: service.post is not a valid link relationship
... eblog/blog_id=3 title=Bill de hÓra /
line 15, column 163: service.edit is not a valid link relationship (15
occurrences)
... id=1688 title=XML Virtual Machines /
line 157, column 33: Two
* Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-09 14:10]:
I also see it uses tag: uris as the atom:id value. I think I'll
change the template to use the http: URI generated by MT3.2 for
the individual entries instead of the tag: (what the rest of
the world calls permalinks).
Just make sure it
On Sep 9, 2005, at 5:03 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Here's the feedvalidator results for my journal served up as
Atom1.0 as
per MT3.2's Atom1.0 template
http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dehora.net%
2Fjournal%2Fatom.xml
I'm getting a 404 on that (or rather the
Tim Bray wrote:
On Sep 9, 2005, at 5:03 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Here's the feedvalidator results for my journal served up as Atom1.0 as
per MT3.2's Atom1.0 template
http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dehora.net%
2Fjournal%2Fatom.xml
I'm getting a 404 on that
Tuesday, July 19, 2005, 12:44:51 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
You misunderstood what I said. The point is that regardless of
how the base URI is determined (whether it is embedded in content
or otherwise), it *means* that the content it applies to was
actually found at the base URI. It’s not
* David Powell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-19 08:25]:
Why does xml:base allow for relative base URIs and stacking
then? If xml:base can only describe the actual source URI of
the document, then these features don't make sense.
Indeed, they don’t.
The example in the xml:base spec [1] uses a
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
It makes me wonder whether the person who wrote the example was
unaware of the consequences of the same-document reference
specifications in the URI RFC. Surely, the xml:base WG must have
noticed this issue and discussed it?
I wonder how many people are aware of it. I
If anyone comes to a definitive conclusion on this,
would they post to the list, or a website please.
TIA
--
Regards,
Dave Pawson
XSLT + Docbook FAQ
http://www.dpawson.co.uk
* Sjoerd Visscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-19 12:35]:
I don't find applying same-document reference behaviour to
fragments of an aggregate document non-sensical. If I XInclude
a piece of XHTML that has same-document references in it, I
still want them to be same-document references, and
* Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-20 01:20]:
While I agree this interpretation is potentially correct, it
moves us pretty far away from the idea of a self-contained
document with a singular embedded base URI, which is all that
RFC2396 ever discusses.
That is pretty much what I said; yes.
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jul 17, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Upon further reading of 3986, I'm convinced that Tim's current feed
is correct.
I think so too, but I'm worried how XML-reader implementations will do
supporting all this base-URI stacking. If this kind of thing is going
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Sjoerd Visscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-18 11:50]:
Yes, your link href= / resolves to
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/ But if you say follow that link
in a program with same-document references support, it will
say: Ok, the link points to http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/,
* Sjoerd Visscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-19 01:25]:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
He is correct, Tim. The base URI means “the URL where this
document was found,” not “the prefix for any enclosed relative
links.” I don’t see how RFC3986 can be read any other way.
I am correct ;), but your
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Sjoerd Visscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-19 01:25]:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
He is correct, Tim. The base URI means “the URL where this
document was found,” not “the prefix for any enclosed relative
links.” I don’t see how RFC3986 can be read any other way.
I am correct
* Sjoerd Visscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-19 03:15]:
That is my interpretation too, but only through the way the
base URI is used. I can't find any hint in that direction
otherwise. It would be nice if T. Berners-Lee, R. Fielding or
L. Masinter could confirm that. If it would have been
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
I didn't realize that path-empty was a valid URI-reference.
Yeah, it means here.
And that's why you can't use it as a reference to your site.
To quote from RFC 3986:
When a URI reference refers to a URI that is, aside
Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
I didn't realize that path-empty was a valid URI-reference.
Yeah, it means here.
And that's why you can't use it as a reference to your site.
To quote from RFC 3986:
When a URI reference refers to a
* Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
And that's why you can't use it as a reference to your site.
That depends a bit on same-document reference processing of Atom
processors. If the Atom processor assumes the link refers to some
web site and passes the absolute reference to some other user agent
there would
Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
I didn't realize that path-empty was a valid URI-reference.
Yeah, it means here.
And that's why you can't use it as a reference to your site.
To quote from RFC 3986:
When a URI reference refers to a
Sam Ruby wrote:
Upon further reading of 3986, I'm convinced that Tim's current feed is
correct.
Base URI defaults to the Retrieval URI. This gives rise to the common
use case of same-document references.
However, Base URI Embedded in Content. In XML documents, this takes the
form of
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
And that's why you can't use it as a reference to your site.
That depends a bit on same-document reference processing of Atom
processors. If the Atom processor assumes the link refers to some
web site and passes the absolute reference to
On 17 Jul 2005, at 4:20 pm, Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
Where did you read that same-document references only apply when
there is no embedded base URI?
Scroll down to the algorithm in 5.2.2, and it backs up Tim and Sam,
in particular this:
if (R.path == ) then
Tim Bray wrote:
I got an email last night from a well known syndication implementor
pointing out an obvious bug in my Atom feed. The feed's valid, but the
stuff in content was full of relative URIs which were broken because
I'd borked the xml:base. So I went through the code and got
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
I didn't realize that path-empty was a valid URI-reference.
Yeah, it means here.
While it clearly shouldn't be the default behavior, longer term
(i.e., sometime well after basic Atom 1.0 support is more
complete), how much value do you think
On Jul 16, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
I got an email last night from a well known syndication implementor
pointing out an obvious bug in my Atom feed. The feed's valid, but
the stuff in content was full of relative URIs which were broken
because I'd borked the xml:base. So I
On May 10, 2005, at 1:27 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
If we choose a specific name, it *must* be in the RFC. Because the RFC
must be a hit for that search.
Marketing: Atom
Technical: Atom (RFC)
I was gonna suggest that too. I think RFC's are into the 4000-space
these days so if we end up as
Marketing: Atom
Technical: Atom (RFC)
+1
--
http://dannyayers.com
On 5/11/05, Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marketing: Atom
Technical: Atom (RFC)
+1
Hmm. I forgot one little detail. It might take like 4-6 months to get
an RFC number after IESG approval.
Robert Sayre
Marketing: Atom
I'm looking forward to an article by Mark Pilgrim about the
incompatible versions of Atom deceitfully marketed as one thing. :-)
(Which is why I said +1 to Atom 1.0.)
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
Henri Sivonen wrote:
Marketing: Atom
I'm looking forward to an article by Mark Pilgrim about the incompatible
versions of Atom deceitfully marketed as one thing. :-)
(Which is why I said +1 to Atom 1.0.)
ARSS, short for Atom RSS. The marketing possibilities are endless.
cheers
Bill
* Bill de hra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-11 17:05]:
ARSS, short for Atom RSS. The marketing possibilities are
endless.
How about Atom Syndication Standard?
I guess the Firefox crowd can then resurrect the non-Wifi looking
autodiscovery icon.
Regards,
--
Aristotle
On Wednesday, May 11, 2005, at 09:09 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-11 17:05]:
ARSS, short for Atom RSS. The marketing possibilities are
endless.
How about Atom Syndication Standard?
So, ASS = Atom Syndication Standard. Or is it Atom Standard for
Syndication?
At 9:45 AM -0400 5/11/05, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/11/05, Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Marketing: Atom
Technical: Atom (RFC)
+1
Hmm. I forgot one little detail. It might take like 4-6 months to get
an RFC number after IESG approval.
s/might/probably will/
--Paul Hoffman,
In a message dated 10/05/2005 03:29:16 GMT Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Question: how do we refer to the product of this WG once it has an RFC
number?
We definitely need some quick, snappy label to refer to that version to
distinguish it from Atom 0.3, which is widely enough
* Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-05-10 04:40]:
We definitely need some quick, snappy label to refer to that
version to distinguish it from Atom 0.3
there'll be no actual spec-based reason to call our product
Atom 1.0. But, we could just go ahead and do it anyhow.
+1 for Atom 1.0 since a
On 10/5/05 7:27 PM, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Which sounds better?
Atom 1.0 released
Atom is finished
Atom is ready
e.
On May 10, 2005, at 05:29, Tim Bray wrote:
Atom 1.0
+1 for Atom 1.0 in order to distinguish from 0.3.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
At 9:09 PM -0700 5/9/05, Walter Underwood wrote:
Seriously, I don't mind Atom 1.0 as long as the next version is
Atom 2.0.
+12
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner-atom-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham
On 10 May 2005, at 3:29 am, Tim Bray wrote:
Question: how do we refer to the product of this WG once it has an
RFC number?
Just Atom, no version number. No one refers to HTTP
--On Tuesday, May 10, 2005 09:12:09 AM -0700 Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 9:09 PM -0700 5/9/05, Walter Underwood wrote:
Seriously, I don't mind Atom 1.0 as long as the next version is
Atom 2.0.
+12
I'd also be happy with just Atom and saying RFC Atom when
pressed for a version.
On 5/10/05, Walter Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we choose a specific name, it *must* be in the RFC. Because the RFC
must be a hit for that search.
Walter, that's a good point. How about:
Marketing: Atom
Technical: Atom (RFC)
?
Robert Sayre
On 10 May 2005, at 9:27 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
Walter, that's a good point. How about:
Marketing: Atom
Technical: Atom (RFC)
Around Dave Winer: RFC
The only real problem with dropping the version number is making it
clear there've been major changes since 0.3.
Graham
Walter Underwood wrote:
I'd also be happy with just Atom and saying RFC Atom when
pressed for a version.
+1
- Sam Ruby
Le 05-05-09 à 23:48, Robert Sayre a écrit :
I like Atom.
Fear the non versioning. And yes there will be new version.
I would even go as far to be sure to be able to identify the language
in the document itself. The namespace should be enough for that.
CSS was defined without versioning in mind
Walter Underwood wrote:
If we choose a specific name, it *must* be in the RFC. Because the RFC
must be a hit for that search.
We can Google-bomb that string I guess. (Atom 1.0.)
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
Tim Bray wrote:
Question: how do we refer to the product of this WG once it has an RFC
number?
We definitely need some quick, snappy label to refer to that version
to distinguish it from Atom 0.3, which is widely enough deployed that
it'll be with us for a while. Per WG consensus, an Atom
Tim Bray wrote:
Question: how do we refer to the product of this WG once it has an RFC
number?
We definitely need some quick, snappy label to refer to that version
to distinguish it from Atom 0.3, which is widely enough deployed that
it'll be with us for a while. Per WG consensus, an Atom doc
On 5/9/05, Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
Question: how do we refer to the product of this WG once it has an RFC
number?
We definitely need some quick, snappy label to refer to that version
to distinguish it from Atom 0.3, which is widely enough deployed that
--On May 9, 2005 7:29:58 PM -0700 Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone have a better idea? --Tim
Hey, let's vote on a *new* name. I'm +1 on Naked News, because
it delivers the news without chrome and crap. Or maybe that is what
you get when Atom (Adam?) goes public. Or because sex sells.
49 matches
Mail list logo
