On 1/19/06, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, I could be in the minority. Which WG members think we should work
on exciting new HTML link relations?
Wow. Nobody.
Phil, could we get a new rev of the Autodiscovery I-D?
--
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter letter, but I
On 22/1/06 3:27 AM, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, I could be in the minority. Which WG members think we should work
on exciting new HTML link relations?
Wow. Nobody.
Phil, could we get a new rev of the Autodiscovery I-D?
nobody likes a strawman.
e.
2006/1/21, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 1/19/06, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But, I could be in the minority. Which WG members think we should work
on exciting new HTML link relations?
Wow. Nobody.
I really think autodiscovery shouldn't use the link relation at all:
Quoting Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why not use the media attribute?
Because that would be tag abuse.
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
2006/1/21, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Quoting Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Why not use the media attribute?
Because that would be tag abuse.
No more than using the @rel value (is a feed an alternate for a
single-entry HTML page?).
So let's change the application/atom+xml
On 1/21/06, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So let's change the application/atom+xml media type to add parameters to it
Why? There's no code that needs it. More code, less email.
--
Robert Sayre
I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.
