(fyi)
Original Message
...
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Hi,
recently different communities (caldav/groupdav, atompup (protocol
part)) have been discussing how to use HTTP to author new resources when
the URL namespace is completely server-controlled, thus PUT just doesn't
fit
+1
We are going to have a registration process, so undoubtably this will be
registered anyway, but we might as well as include it in the initial batch.
- Sam Ruby
+1
Robert Sayre
I don't think that accessibility is optional. It isn't a profile, it is
a requirement. Maybe summaries are optional, but not because accessibility
is optional.
wunder
--On February 14, 2005 8:48:08 PM -0800 James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the risk of beating the PaceProfile drum to
James M Snell wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
Yes or No: Is asking what capabilities existing XML-RPC protocols
provide is a productive way to set the limits of the Atom Protocol?
Of course not. I for one don't really give a rip what the existing
XML-RPC API's currently provide or don't
Tim Bray wrote:
PaceExtensionConstruct
One -1, 1.5 +1's.
DISPOSITION: Not enough support, close it.
PaceHeadless
Lots of talk, more -1's than +1's.
DISPOSITION: No consensus, close it.
PaceLangSpecific
Not a lot of discussion, but pretty positive.
DISPOSITION: Borderline, but accepted.
These
PaceProfile
Changed along the way, quite a few +1's but even more -1's. A certain
amount of +1 on concept, -1 on syntax which doesn't help.
DISPOSITION: No consensus, close it.
PaceProfileAttribute
No significant support.
DISPOSITION: Close it
It would be nice if folks would actually
Tim Bray wrote:
On Feb 15, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
PaceLinkEnclosure
A little bit of support, but with reservations.
DISPOSITION: A messy Pace and not enough support, close it.
You're kidding, right? I can already here the chants. OMG ATOM
DOESN'T DO PODCASTING LOL
Uh, we already
Tim Bray wrote:
PaceXhtmlNamespaceDiv
This is tough. There are some people who are really against this and
who aren't moving. On the other hand, there are way more who are in
favor. Reviewing the discussion, the contras are saying that this is
sloppy and unnecessary and if it solves a
James M Snell wrote:
PaceProfileAttribute
No significant support.
DISPOSITION: Close it
It would be nice if folks would actually comment in detail on these.
They really have not been adequately discussed. It would be helpful if
those who are -1 to the idea of profiles could offer a bit
Bill de hÓra wrote:
It has yet to been explained to me why they might be necessary - so why
do I need to think they're not necessary to justify an objection? ;)
Heh.. that's fair ;-)
I've also made a (I believe significant) point in conflating @profile to
@rel that hasn't been addressed (imho).
[I appologize that this comes late. I was ill last week.]
I'm also still not convinced about this one. It was introduced
with a very good motivation, namely that it would increase the
chance that namespaces would be used correctly. After the changes,
what I understand is left is the following:
12 matches
Mail list logo
