On 12 Aug 2005, at 9:16 am, Carey Evans wrote:
First, where does the spec actually say that the atom:id shouldn't
change if the blog moves to a different domain? I think that if the
URL of the blog changes, it means that the Atom Feed Document has been
relocated so the ID should stay the
On 9 Jan 2006, at 9:33 pm, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
category
scheme=http://.../tag;
term=?tag=foo
label=foo
/
Blurgh.
Graham
On 16 Jan 2006, at 3:09 am, James Holderness wrote:
The one time I'd think it might be safe is with XHTML (as I
mentioned in a previous message) since Atom processors are already
required to handle XHTML fragments in the content element. Anything
else would be highly risky unless it was a
On 16 Jan 2006, at 6:50 am, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
okay, another thrust, taking into account the things you said in
your reply to the first thrust: is anything wrong with this?
entry
!-- ... --
content type=application/xml
category .../
/content
/entry
On 16 Jan 2006, at 4:59 pm, James Holderness wrote:
In theory, yes. In practice, no. Bare in mind that the 0.3 Atom
spec had type=application/xhtml+xml with basically the same
functionality as the current type=xhtml. Now since Atom 0.3 is
still a whole lot more widely used than Atom 1.0,
On 18 Jan 2006, at 3:06 am, James Holderness wrote:
The problem it that proving something is quite likely to work
says nothing about whether it would be valid and/or safe, even
in the limited context of XHTML.
True, but sometimes people have to make decisions based on the
limited
On 18 Jan 2006, at 12:05 pm, Andreas Sewe wrote:
Note, however, that a type attribute on the content element cannot
be used since /img is a negotiated resource -- this violates the
SHOULD in 4.1.3.2.: 'If the src attribute is present, the type
attribute SHOULD be provided [...].'
Note
On 19 Jan 2006, at 11:53 am, David Powell wrote:
Possibly, but that solution isn't perfect. There is a tradeoff between
supplying an inaccurate type, and supplying no type at all. This TAG
finding [1] discusses the issue quite thoroughly.
[1]
On 24 Jan 2006, at 10:55 pm, James M Snell wrote:
Thoughts?
It's either not going to be used or will be abused when it is. I
can't see it ending well.
Graham
