Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
Walter Underwood wrote:
--On August 30, 2005 1:49:57 AM -0400 Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has
proposed
extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve got folk
who are
proposing
On 8/31/05, Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Correction:
I doubt there's much difference in terms of effort needed to support
either the per-entry or in-entry approaches. Capabilities of the
client might make a lot of difference though
=
I doubt there's much difference in terms of
+1 I completely agree with Bob again.
Though my preference of course would be to put RDF in the content.
RDF has structures for ordered lists. It probably has vocabularies
for songs.
It has vocabulary to specify the author of a work, etc... And with
foaf you
could also specify which of the
How would this apply to the most problematic example of a list feed,
the BBC news headline page:
http://newsrss.bbc.co.uk//rss/newsonline_uk_edition/front_page/rss.xml
Which has the top stories first (amongst other structure) and is a
hell of a lot more usable in news readers that
Mhh. Good point too.
For some reason though, this is starting to make me think that a feed
is an entry again...
Henry
On 30 Aug 2005, at 13:23, Graham wrote:
How would this apply to the most problematic example of a list
feed, the BBC news headline page:
Sorry, Bob I disagree. I tried to introduce a rigid concept of what a
feed is much earlier, and people pushed back; as a result, Atom
doesn't have a firm definition of the nature of a feed. As a result,
we can't go and say what it can't be at a later date.
Besides which, I think the use
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Sorry, Bob I disagree. I tried to introduce a rigid concept of what a
feed is much earlier, and people pushed back; as a result, Atom
doesn't have a firm definition of the nature of a feed. As a result,
we can't go and say what it can't be at a later date.
On 30 Aug 2005, at 9:01 pm, Mark Nottingham wrote:
It sounds like you've got use cases for Atom that other use cases
(e.g., lists) make difficult to work with. Banning those other use
cases makes things easier for you, but I don't think it's good for
Atom overall.
But conceptually Bob
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Are you saying that when/if Netflix switches over to Atom, they
shouldn't use it for the Queue?
No. I'm saying that if Netflix switches over to Atom, what they
should do is insert the Queue information, as a list, into a single entry
within the feed.
This
Bob Wyman wrote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has
proposed extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve got
folk who are proposing much the same for Atom (i.e. stateful,
incremental or partitioned feeds)… I think they are wrong. Feeds
aren’t
--On August 30, 2005 1:49:57 AM -0400 Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has proposed
extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve got folk who are
proposing much the same for Atom (i.e. stateful, incremental or
Walter Underwood wrote:
--On August 30, 2005 1:49:57 AM -0400 Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has proposed
extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve got folk who are
proposing much the same for Atom (i.e.
--On August 30, 2005 3:50:45 PM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
One could read that to mean that feeds are fundamentally unordered or that
Atom doesn't say what the order means.
Is not logical order, if any, determined by the datetime of the published
(or updated) element?
--On August 30, 2005 3:50:45 PM -0600 Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Otherwise, it is not possible to go from Atom to RSS 1.0.
I assume you mean from RSS 1.0 to Atom. :-)
No. You can go from a Bag to List by ignoring the order. RSS 1.0 is a
List, so you would need to invent an
* Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-30 23:40]:
Henry Story also proposed atom:id to be order-related:
Indeed, and together with an extension for expiring entries, the
Netflix use case should be pretty well covered.
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/
It's late here, but since I have been called...
Clearly the order of the entries could not be deduced from the tags
themselves.
One would need to have an extra tag in there such as this position tag
feed
entry
idtag:first-in-list/id
ext:position1/position
titleThe
Or.. perhaps i:index1/i:index
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-index-01.txt
- James
Henry Story wrote:
It's late here, but since I have been called...
Clearly the order of the entries could not be deduced from the tags
themselves.
One would need to have an
On 31/8/05 7:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is not logical order, if any, determined by the datetime of the
published (or updated) element?
No. I've seen a few things online where they publish chapter 3 first,
followed by chapter 8, and then go back and fill in the blanks.
On 31/8/05 6:01 AM, Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It sounds like you've got use cases for Atom that other use cases
(e.g., lists) make difficult to work with. Banning those other use
cases makes things easier for you, but I don't think it's good for
Atom overall.
those other use
Im sorry, but I cant
go on without complaining. Microsoft has proposed extensions which turn
RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and weve got folk who are proposing much the
same for Atom (i.e. stateful, incremental or partitioned feeds) I think
they are wrong. Feeds arent lists and Lists arent
20 matches
Mail list logo
