=[atom]
and without dropping the 'type' attribute entirely (which was the other
solution pointed out on the whatwg list).
~fantasai
separate MIME types, I think it would make more sense
to differentiate entry and feed documents like this.
~fantasai
happy.
+1 to speccing this through the WHAT-WG. I'm sure Ian would be happy to
address any concerns brought up by this community.
~fantasai
form feeds are normally not used in source code files whereas
line breaks and indendation often are?
~fantasai
Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma wrote:
fantasai wrote:
Actually, I think start is the best fit. The main feed is often not a
table of contents to the entire weblog, but something partial. It is,
however, the starting point of the collection.
Actually, I disagree with start because of the first sentence
Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma wrote:
fantasai wrote:
I think you've missed how things are working at the moment. Most
programs implemented what's in the spec before it's written. Mark is
trying to negotiate a common standard when implementations already
exist. A lot of experimentation has already
Nikolas 'Atrus' Coukouma wrote:
fantasai wrote:
An excellent point. Perhaps these should use rel=home :)
link rel=home type=application/atom+xml href=/xml/feed.atom
...
The value of rel, if present, will vary based on relation
* the feed for *this* page - rel=alternate
* the feed for main feed
it as a feed
rather than a generic XML document.
~fantasai
the ice with feed then RSS 1.0 wins.
'feed' is not really defining a /relation/, it's defining a sort of
meta-content-type... But I would much prefer that to forcing 'alternate'
on non-'alternate' links.
~fantasai
(Copying to WHATWG mailing list: http://www.whatwg.org/ )
the document and the feed it links
to (unless otherwise specified).
~fantasai
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/4/05, fantasai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Who's to say we can't overload it a little for this case?
You are not writing the HTML 4.01 spec, you're writing an autodiscovery
spec that takes advantage of the syntax *and semantics* given in HTML 4.
Your specification should
be wrong.
~fantasai
Antone Roundy wrote:
On Tuesday, May 3, 2005, at 11:41 PM, fantasai wrote:
David Nesting wrote:
I expect that many of my implementations will utilize content
negotiation
(using the same URL as an HTML representation, where needed), so I
expect
that I'll have some links like:
link rel
Antone Roundy wrote:
On Wednesday, May 4, 2005, at 12:59 PM, fantasai wrote:
Again, my friend's blog feed is not an Atom version of /my/ web page;
linking to it as alternate would be wrong.
To me, this raises a red flag, suggesting that using an autodiscovery
link from your web page to your
representations of the current page.
[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11705.html
~fantasai
?
You are not writing the HTML 4.01 spec, you're writing an autodiscovery
spec that takes advantage of the syntax *and semantics* given in HTML 4.
Your specification should be consistent with HTML 4, not contradictory
to it.
~fantasai
to the renderer is collapsed or not. If the
parser collapses whitespace, CSS will never see it.
~fantasai
this restriction?
I don't think it's really necessary.
~fantasai
18 matches
Mail list logo
