Well, I ain't gonna argue the point, but I'm going to stick by the
assertion that feeder/head is ugly. Any use of this stuff I plan to
make can live equally well with either approach.
- James M Snell
Walter Underwood wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 08, 2005 08:39:42 AM -0500 Bob Wyman
<[EMAIL PR
--On Tuesday, February 08, 2005 08:39:42 AM -0500 Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Linking to the feed is not an acceptable solution. It must be
possible to embed feed metadata in an entry in a feed and in an Entry
document.
+1
The feed document *must* be standalone. Everything required to
James M Snell wrote:
> My preference would be a link based alternative.
>
> ...
>
> ...
>
>
>
I'm tired of arguing this one, so, I'm just going to say this one
more time and leave it at that.
Linking to the feed is not an acceptable solution. It must be
possible to
On 8/2/05 4:38 PM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agree, feeder is ugly. but head should still go away. My preference
> would be a link based alternative.
>
>
> ...
>
>...
>
>
>
+1
Agree, feeder is ugly. but head should still go away. My preference
would be a link based alternative.
...
...
- James M Snell
Eric Scheid wrote:
-1 atom:feeder is ugly
-1 atom:feeder is ugly
+1, there's no reason for atom:head.
Robert Sayre
> PaceHeadless
-1
Graham wrote:
-1
Putting everything in one group and requiring it to be first is useful,
and also adds consistency to head-in-entry, as evidenced by the
introduction of the feeder element. Also "feeder" is a horrible word.
And "head" doesn't suck? I struggle to type a sentence on the subject
wit
-1
Putting everything in one group and requiring it to be first is useful,
and also adds consistency to head-in-entry, as evidenced by the
introduction of the feeder element. Also "feeder" is a horrible word.
Graham
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
10 matches
Mail list logo
