Henry Story wrote:
Is the mixed format case really possible? Last time I looked there
were problems,
such as different tags using attributes with the same name but with
different
semantics. I thought we were close last time I looked, but not quite
there.
It seems feasible for a
If I could distract folks from the champagne and crudities for a moment:
First - I just received a rewrite of the spec draft in nicely-styled
XHTML 1.0, from someone (who wishes to remain anonymous) who refers to
the IETF docs as so 1989 -
On 15 Jul 2005, at 11:20 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:
Can you be more specific?
If I plug my new Atom 1.0 feed into the validator:
http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%
2Fwww.fondantfancies.com%2Fblog%2Fatom1%2F
Last night, it said the feed wasn't valid, but today it's saying:
Hi,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.txt
refers to white-space a couple of times but does not define this term.
The exact definition is important to know for 4.1.3.3 item 6 and I would
like to avoid to /assume/ that this means any number of U+0020, U+0009,
On Sat, Jul 16, 2005 at 06:48:58AM +0200, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* 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
On 7/16/05, Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second - I just read 3 reviews of Atom (linked from Dave Winer's blog)
containing significant criticism, much of it valid. However the target
of these posts wasn't Atom itself, but the 'RSS 2.0 and Atom Compared'
doc (on the Wiki/Tim's
* Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-16 12:40]:
Are you advocating changing permanent identifiers? Bad Sam.
ID canonicalization was a bloody stupid idea.
Eeep. Even though I don’t think canonicalization was a stupid
idea, more careful thought was and is probably necessary about
the impact it
The Feed History draft has been updated to -02;
http://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-
history-02.txt
The most noticeable change in this version is the inclusion of a
namespace URI, to allow implementation.
I don't intend to update it for a while, so as to
--On July 16, 2005 11:16:44 AM -0400 Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I found the criticism pathetic.
A little lame, at least. You can't add precision and interoperability
with innovation and extension.
But there is a point buried under all that. What are the changes required
to support
Danny Ayers wrote:
If I could distract folks from the champagne and crudities for a moment:
First - I just received a rewrite of the spec draft in nicely-styled
XHTML 1.0, from someone (who wishes to remain anonymous) who refers to
the IETF docs as so 1989 -
On 7/16/05, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://dannyayers.com/atom/draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.xhtml
...
Just run the XML version of the spec through rfc2629toXhtml.xslt
(http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/rfc2629xslt/rfc2629toXHTML.xslt).
There is an HTML version of the
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-16 19:50]:
There is an HTML version of the spec here: http://atompub.org/.
It was there when Danny sent his email, so I'm not sure what
all the whinging is about.
I like both versions for different reasons. Thanks, of course,
for providing a HTML
I got an email last night from a well known syndication implementor
pointing out an obvious bug in my Atom feed. The feed's valid, but
the stuff in content was full of relative URIs which were broken
because I'd borked the xml:base. So I went through the code and got
the xml:base right
* A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I like both versions for different reasons. Thanks, of course,
for providing a HTML rendition – I, too, have to say I find the
ASCII versions very 1989. (I use rfc.net to read RFCs so there is
at least a modicum of formatting and actual, you know, links.)
There is
* James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-16 20:05]:
If the community can drive a viable solution without the
overhead of a formalized standardization process, it will work
out best for everyone and the anti-formal-standards crowd will
have far less to complain about or will at least be able
On 7/16/05, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-16 20:05]:
If the community can drive a viable solution without the
overhead of a formalized standardization process, it will work
out best for everyone and the anti-formal-standards crowd will
On 7/16/05, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 7/16/05, Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second - I just read 3 reviews of Atom (linked from Dave Winer's blog)
I found the criticism pathetic.
Well, yes, but you're more familiar with the reality than most people
that are likely
On 7/16/05, Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you even *do* a podcast in Atom? (This is kind-of what I'm
trying to get at ;-)
What clients support podcasts in Atom?
NetNewsWire supports it.
Robert Sayre
On 7/16/05, Walter Underwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But there is a point buried under all that. What are the changes required
to support Atom? It looks complicated, but how hard is it? Here is a shot
at that information.
Thanks Walter, this is good...
For publishers, you need to be
Tim Bray wrote:
I got an email last night from a well known syndication implementor
pointing out an obvious bug in my Atom feed. The feed's valid, but the
stuff in content was full of relative URIs which were broken because
I'd borked the xml:base. So I went through the code and got
Danny Ayers wrote:
On 7/16/05, A. Pagaltzis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-16 20:05]:
If the community can drive a viable solution without the
overhead of a formalized standardization process, it will work
out best for everyone and the
Sam Ruby wrote:
Danny Ayers wrote:
Yahoo!'s approach did seem to work very well without any formal
process, effectively just a mailing list and editor. But then Apple
came along...
... at which point, I would think that it should be painfully obvious
to all that that which did seem to
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-16 22:00]:
On 7/16/05, Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How do you even *do* a podcast in Atom? (This is kind-of what
I'm trying to get at ;-) What clients support podcasts in
Atom?
NetNewsWire supports it.
So does Liferea.
And while most
On Jul 16, 2005, at 1:28 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
I didn't realize that path-empty was a valid URI-reference.
Yeah, it means here.
While it clearly shouldn't be the default behavior, longer term
(i.e., sometime well after basic Atom 1.0 support is more
complete), how much value do you think
On Jul 16, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Tim Bray wrote:
I got an email last night from a well known syndication implementor
pointing out an obvious bug in my Atom feed. The feed's valid, but
the stuff in content was full of relative URIs which were broken
because I'd borked the xml:base. So I
On 7/16/05, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question: can anybody here quantify the overhead of the IETF
standardization process? While I certainly would label some of the last
few weeks overhead, everything else I attribute to the impact of
allowing and enabling a wider set of
About a formal standards process, as far as I can tell the only two Bigs
involved right now are Apple and Yahoo. Is there anybody else?
We can assume that Y! would be pretty friendly. It's not a given that
they would participate, but it's plausible. Apple, though, is a
different story.
FYI... I've deployed a working prototype of the comments link relation
extension on my personal weblog.
http://www.snellspace.com/wp/wp-atom1.php
http://www.snellspace.com/wp/wp-commentsatom1.php
The @rel attributes use the values:
http://www.snellspace.com/atom/extensions/proposed/comments
Le 16 juil. 2005, à 13:53, James M Snell a écrit :
Let's see if we can avoid the IETF process for now and encourage Yahoo
and Apple to get together with the community to work on some a common
approach, get some implementations out there to evolve it a bit, then
evaluate later whether or not
* Lucas Gonze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-17 03:40]:
Apple, though, is a different story. Is there any reason to
think that they would take it seriously?
Mostly this: http://tantek.com/log/2005/07.html#d10t0130
I don’t know if there’s been any other motion yet. Apple, the
company, apparently
* Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-13 17:35]:
Quick poll: how many feed readers let the user read the current
feed document without first requiring them to subscribe. That
is, present the content, along with a button subscribe to
future updates.
I’ve not seen any dedicated feed readers
* Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-06-30 05:20]:
On 30/6/05 11:54 AM, Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't quite get what the hub feed would look like. Could
you show us some XML?
I think something like this:
feed
...
titlearchives hub for x/title
link
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Eric Scheid [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-13 17:35]:
could we have @href and then also @idref ... then when we mean
to provide a dereferenceable uri we can put it in @href, and
when we want to provide an ID reference we can put it in
@idref. We can even put both into a
A significant part of my brain is screaming at me that the most logical
way to associate a license with an entry/feed is to use a link element.
After all, we are linking the entry/feed with an external resource (the
license) that is identifiable via URI. For instance, if I ommitted the
34 matches
Mail list logo
