James M Snell:
I would expect anyone who uses RSS 1.0 would be more likely to use
extensions that are well suited to RSS 1.0 and that anyone who uses Atom
1.0 would be more likely to use extensions that are well suited to Atom.
If there is the possibility of cross-over, great, if not, that's
Oops, sent this from the wrong address on Saturday. No wonder it
didn't get through.
On Oct 8, 2005, at 8:37 AM, James M Snell wrote:
I wanted to indicate that a given entry must expire at Midnight on
Dec, 12, 2005 (GMT).
using age:expires:
[snip]
using dcterms:valid
I'd be in favour of dcterms:valid (preferably restricted in form) for the
following reasons:
* I'm worried that producers of RSS 1.0 feeds would be more likely to use
dcterms:valid and thus consumers would be obliged to support it anyway.
* dcterms:valid has slightly more functionality in
Mark Nottingham wrote:
I'm torn; on the one hand, dcterms is already defined, and already used
in other feed formats; on the other hand, the syntax is less-than-simple.
Indeed. A perfectly, utterly valid dcterms:valid value:
start=George W. Bush; scheme=US Presidents; name=Bush II
I'm -1
James Holderness wrote:
I'd be in favour of dcterms:valid (preferably restricted in form) for
the following reasons:
* I'm worried that producers of RSS 1.0 feeds would be more likely to
use dcterms:valid and thus consumers would be obliged to support it
anyway.
I would expect anyone
On 10/10/05 2:02 PM, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* dcterms:valid has slightly more functionality in that you get to
specify a start date.
I don't necessarily want more functionality. The atom:updated date
gives us a perfectly good start date.
Perhaps atom:published would be
Yeah, that kind of tears it for me; we could profile it, but I'm less
than convinced that the potential reuse is worth it (esp. when it's
so trivial to map age:expires into dcterms:valid).
+1 to age:expires.
On 09/10/2005, at 10:21 AM, Phil Ringnalda wrote:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Yeah, I've been thinking a bit about that. The only thing that was
holding me back was that atom:published is optional and only appears on
atom:entry. I wanted the extension to be able to work on the feed level
also. That said, the spec could be updated to say that IF the published
date
Ok all, after looking this over in detail, I personally still have a
preference for the age:expires and age:max-age elements in the
feed-expires spec. Of course, this is likely due more to the fact that
I wrote the draft as opposed to a sound, objective and technical
perspective. So I want
