On 7/18/05, Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Media RSS already has an effective editor who is also a good listener:
Yahoo's David Hall. If the Media RSS folks (or some other constituency
who've done their homework) want to use this WG as their venue, that
would be great. If not, I would
On 7/16/05, Lucas Gonze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
At 8:58 PM -0400 7/16/05, Robert Sayre wrote:
I hesitate to put a number on it, but our experience included a
ghastly amount of debate on field names. If I were setting up a WG for
something like Media RSS, I would probably rule debate on field names
out of order (realizing that people have to
On 7/17/05, Paul Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
co-chair-hat position='on'I would only entertain a charter
extension if we had a volunteer to be the document author, and
expressed interest from developers. This will certainly be
contentious./co-chair-hat
Alternatively, someone can write
because they were scampering to get to the market with
podcasting in iTunes. Yahoo has been, from the start.
I think the timing for Atom going gold couldn’t have been much
better; had it taken a bit more time, then all discussion of the
podcasting and media extensions would have had to revolve
it's because they were scampering to get to the market with
podcasting in iTunes.
Ah, that's good to hear.
Yahoo has been, from the start.
I think the timing for Atom going gold couldn't have been much
better; had it taken a bit more time, then all discussion of the
podcasting and media
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
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 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.
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
