Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul assures me that the remaining IETF process steps will not
introduce material technical changes, and so format-10 is appropriate
as a basis for implementors to go to work.
Excellent!
So, implementors... to work.
Just to show willing:
Henry Story wrote:
Is the mixed format case really possible? Last time I looked there
were problems,
such as different tags using attributes with the same name but with
different
semantics. I thought we were close last time I looked, but not quite
there.
It seems feasible for a
Paul assures me that the remaining IETF process steps will not
introduce material technical changes, and so format-10 is appropriate
as a basis for implementors to go to work. So, implementors... to
work. And everyone, now is a good time to tell the world. -Tim
Quoting Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Paul assures me that the remaining IETF process steps will not
introduce material technical changes, and so format-10 is appropriate
as a basis for implementors to go to work. So, implementors... to
work. And everyone, now is a good time to tell the
On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 10:32:29 +0200, Anne van Kesteren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yay!
I second this yay. Yay!
(Except for the namespace that is. Ouch!)
Yea, that was a bit awkward. The format has a couple of other minor flaws
as well, but nothing worth fighting for and nothing serious
--On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, implementors... to work.
Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the Deployment section of http://www.tbray.org/atom/RSS-and-Atom.
Ultraseek will implement Atom. We need to think more about
On Jul 15, 2005, at 8:56 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
--On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, implementors... to work.
Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the Deployment section of
Congrats All!
I'll be updating my personal blog feed to Atom 1.0 shortly. I've
already updated my IBM internal blog feed to Atom 1.0. Took less than
five minutes to update from 0.3 to 1.0.
Tim Bray wrote:
Paul assures me that the remaining IETF process steps will not
introduce
It would be easy to add atom to BlogEd, though I really would like the
link rel=ext;next href=http://bblfish.net/blog/archive.
10.atom
to be agreed upon. This would allow me to place all the blog content
in an
archive. It would of course also be useful to have the namespace.
Henry
Absolutely.
Robert Sayre
On 7/15/05, Henry Story [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry. It looks like there is a final namespace:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom
Is that correct?
Henry
On 15 Jul 2005, at 20:06, Henry Story wrote:
It would be easy to add atom to BlogEd, though I really
On 15 Jul 2005, at 4:56 pm, Walter Underwood wrote:
Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the Deployment section of http://www.tbray.org/atom/RSS-and-Atom.
My blog has one here:
http://www.fondantfancies.com/blog/atom1/
I think it's valid, though it's hard to
http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F
:)
Robert Sayre
On 7/15/05, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15 Jul 2005, at 4:56 pm, Walter Underwood wrote:
Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the
On Jul 15, 2005, at 12:35 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F
Hmm... the feed looks OK to me; I wouldn't be surprised if it's
tickling a bug in the just-barely-into-beta Atom 1.0 feedvalidator
code. -Tim
* Dan Brickley wrote:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/a1.xml
`Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9`. Hurray...
--
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim ·
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* Dan Brickley wrote:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/HTML/samples/atom/a1.xml
`Content-Type: text/xml; qs=0.9`. Hurray...
I could fix that... question is, to what? :)
The Atom spec says Atom docs are identified using the Atom media type, but
I
Sjoerd Visscher wrote:
Dan Brickley wrote:
Let me emphasise that I'm not claiming these Atom docs are reasonably
interpreted as RDF. Just that they seem to, by happy coincidence as
it were, at least
share a syntax with RDF. The intepretation of this syntactic state of
affairs is
up for
On Friday, July 15, 2005, at 09:56 AM, Walter Underwood wrote:
--On July 14, 2005 11:37:05 PM -0700 Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
So, implementors... to work.
Do we have a list of who is implementing it? That could be used in
the Deployment section of
17 matches
Mail list logo
