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
A misspelling...in case the opportunity to fix it arises: Text
Contruct -- missing an s in 6.3. (I found it because I misspelled
it the same way when searching for it!)
http://atompub.org/
Robert Sayre
/ Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] was heard to say:
| A misspelling...in case the opportunity to fix it arises: Text Contruct
| -- missing an s in 6.3. (I found it because I misspelled it the same way
| when searching for it!)
Also in the typo category:
# -*- rnc -*-
# RELAX NG Compact Syntax
--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
What would the HTTP Accept Headers for Atom V1.0 look like?
i.e. if I want to tell the server that I want Atom V1.0 but do not want Atom
0.3?
bob wyman
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
In defining both an atom:feed and atom:entry, atomAuthor is specified as
allowing multiple authors, in both the text description and RELAX-NG
formats.
The atom:source defines atomAuthor as 0 or 1, not allowing multiple
atomAuthors. (Section 4.2.11)
Is that what was intended? Just seemed
Graham wrote:
Why does the validator apparently fail outright when SHOULD level
requirements are ignored? This seems unnecessary in light of having a
spec where conformance levels are clearly defined.
Can you be more specific?
Perhaps this will help: FormatTests documents my intent. If
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
Isofarro wrote:
In defining both an atom:feed and atom:entry, atomAuthor is specified
as allowing multiple authors, in both the text description and
RELAX-NG formats.
The atom:source defines atomAuthor as 0 or 1, not allowing multiple
atomAuthors. (Section 4.2.11)
Is that what was
* Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-15 21:45]:
What would the HTTP Accept Headers for Atom V1.0 look like?
i.e. if I want to tell the server that I want Atom V1.0 but do
not want Atom 0.3?
There is no official MIME type for Atom 0.3, is there? So
technically you can’t even ask the server
23 matches
Mail list logo
