I've had a response; they're happy (Joe G can confirm this), and say
they'll update their next draft to accommodate the regs.
All systems go; requesting registration shortly.
On 03/11/2005, at 6:54 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 24/10/2005, at 2:12 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
That is true,
On 24/10/2005, at 2:12 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:That is true, but have you communicated with the OpenSearch people aboutthis? I do strongly believe that *here* is the place for work likethis, rather than behind closed doors at Amazon. But if I was them I'dfeel pretty miffed that this WG appears
Am 23.10.2005 um 23:34 schrieb Mark Nottingham:
On 23/10/2005, at 1:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
I prefer 'subscribe' because it better describes the meaning and
intention behind the link, but I can live with 'current' if that is
the
consensus.
Well, Tim seemed to have a pretty strong -1
I agree self would do well. But it is true that it's current
definition
is a little vague. I don't suppose one can refine it in a way
consistent with its current definition?
In any case this all looks good to me. As soon as we agree on the
names, I will
implement these links in BlogEd,
* Henry Story [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-24 12:00]:
What would I need to add to my feed to make it clear that I my
feed is incremental (I think that's what my feed would be)?
By my understanding, incremental is the default semantic for a
feed, so to make it clear that that’s what yours is you
Hi Mark,
Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 23/10/2005, at 1:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
I prefer 'subscribe' because it better describes the meaning and
intention behind the link, but I can live with 'current' if that is
the consensus.
Well, Tim seemed to have a pretty
Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've replaced subscribe with current; otherwise, these are the
same as in the last round. I think they're ready to go -- any more
comments?
I prefer 'subscribe' because it better describes the meaning and
intention behind the link, but I can live
Mark Nottingham wrote:
I've replaced subscribe with current; otherwise, these are the
same as in the last round. I think they're ready to go -- any more
comments?
+1 on everything
* Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-23 23:40]:
Well, Tim seemed to have a pretty strong -1 on 'subscribe',
whereas you say you can live with 'current'. So, at this point
it looks like 'current', unless other people come forward. I
flirted with recent briefly; anybody strongly like
I've replaced subscribe with current; otherwise, these are the
same as in the last round. I think they're ready to go -- any more
comments?
- Attribute Value: previous
- Description: A URI that refers to the immediately preceding
document in a series of documents.
- Expected
What's the difference between current and last?
Elias
On 10/22/05, Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've replaced subscribe with current; otherwise, these are the
same as in the last round. I think they're ready to go -- any more
comments?
- Attribute Value: previous
-
cool. +1 then.
On 10/22/05, Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When you dereference current, you'll always get a feed document
that contains the most recent entries in the feed. There's
effectively a guarantee that the latest entries will be there.
When you dereference last, you'll
12 matches
Mail list logo
