On 30 Jul 2005, at 1:38 am, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-30 01:40]:
It's really just a hint as to where original entries MIGHT be
found.
“originally-at?”
source?
Graham
Hi,
what are y'all using for Atom buttons?
cheers
Bill
James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FYI: http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=193
Abstract: Proposes two new elements that allow entries to be ordered
within a feed.
[xml condensed:]
feed xmlns=http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom;
* James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-30 18:10]:
Yeah, source is likely the most logical choice, but I didn't
want to confuse folks with a link @rel=source that has a
different meaning from atom:source.
An argument by way of which I came around to Antone’s suggested
“start-of-thread,”
* Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-30 18:40]:
what are y'all using for Atom buttons?
I’m not using one, but I thought there was one with the atom from
the Atom logo? I can’t find any such thing now, though; well,
except the one at the feedvalidator, but that’s too large for my
taste.
On Saturday, July 30, 2005, at 02:38 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-30 18:10]:
Yeah, source is likely the most logical choice, but I didn't
want to confuse folks with a link @rel=source that has a
different meaning from atom:source.
An argument by way of
* Justin Fletcher [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-30 23:25]:
I'm quite happy with 'replies-source' because it does not
indComparing to mail seems to be a reasonable thing to do -
mail has a considerable amount of prior implementation and
understanding from which concepts can be drawn. However,
I'm using the one from the Feed Validator.
http://www.snellspace.com/public/valid-atom.png
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-30 18:40]:
what are y'all using for Atom buttons?
I’m not using one, but I thought there was one with the atom from
the Atom
I agree. I'd much rather avoid introducing a new namespace for this
tho. Nested link elements if just fine I think
link rel=in-reply-to href=...
link rel=source href=... /
/link
Using source in this context I think avoids the potential confusion had
the link appeared without nesting.
One challenge is that for anything besides references to Atom entries,
there is no guarantee that in-reply-to links will be non-traversable.
For instance, if someone were to go and define a behavior for using
in-reply-to with RSS, the href of the link may point to the same URL
that the RSS
On Saturday, July 30, 2005, at 04:37 PM, James M Snell wrote:
One challenge is that for anything besides references to Atom entries,
there is no guarantee that in-reply-to links will be non-traversable.
For instance, if someone were to go and define a behavior for using
in-reply-to with
Saturday, July 30, 2005, 9:55:33 PM, Antone Roundy wrote:
link rel=in-reply-to ...
link rel=in-reply-to-feed ... /
/link
I'm not at all keen on extending the link element in this way. Atom
Publishing Servers that don't know about this extension that receive
an entry containing
Sunday, July 31, 2005, 1:09:44 AM, I wrote:
I don't believe that atom:link _isn't_ usefully extensible other than by
er, that should be is
--
Dave
On 31/7/05 7:47 AM, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I¹m -1 on using ³replies-source²; I should have said so more
explicitly before. To me it is non-sensical, as it parses as ³the
source of replies,² which is the opposite relationship of what
it¹s supposed to express. It¹s not where the
14 matches
Mail list logo
