Re: PaceFeedRecursive is filled in
Robert, can you take a stab at updating section 1.2 for this Pace? I'll also note that this example is not valid. It does not contain either a summary or content element. One thing to consider is to do like what was done in Atom 0.3 [1]: provide both a minimal and maximal example. - Sam Ruby [1] http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/12/13/atom03
Re: PaceFeedRecursive is filled in
Sam Ruby wrote: Robert, can you take a stab at updating section 1.2 for this Pace? Yes, but the Pace is complete without it. I'll also note that this example is not valid. It does not contain either a summary or content element. Hmm. How do I do a linkblog with this restriction? Robert Sayre
Re: PaceFeedRecursive is filled in
Robert Sayre wrote: Hmm. How do I do a linkblog with this restriction? I believe a linkblog should always have atom:content which provides some information on the reason why you posted the link or a comment on the link or something similar. -- Anne van Kesteren http://annevankesteren.nl/
Re: PaceFeedRecursive is filled in
Robert Sayre wrote: Sam Ruby wrote: Robert, can you take a stab at updating section 1.2 for this Pace? Yes, but the Pace is complete without it. It would be much easier to discuss the pace with an example. I gather that a format-05 compatible feed, thus: feed entry head.../head /entry /feed would become something like: feed feed entry.../entry /feed /feed I suspect that once people see some examples, objections will surface. - Sam Ruby
Re: PaceFeedRecursive is filled in
Sam Ruby wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: Sam Ruby wrote: Robert, can you take a stab at updating section 1.2 for this Pace? Yes, but the Pace is complete without it. It would be much easier to discuss the pace with an example. I suspect that once people see some examples, objections will surface. It's inappropriate for this Pace to be recommended for closure. I will get to the examples when I can. Robert Sayre
Re: PaceFeedRecursive is filled in
Sam Ruby wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: Sam Ruby wrote: Robert, can you take a stab at updating section 1.2 for this Pace? Yes, but the Pace is complete without it. It would be much easier to discuss the pace with an example. I gather that a format-05 compatible feed, thus: I suspect that once people see some examples, objections will surface. I've included an example of each approach, so people can compare the two methods. I have not positioned them as spec text. The spec requires more examples no matter which approach the WG chooses. Robert Sayre
Re: PaceFeedRecursive is filled in
Robert Sayre wrote: I suspect that once people see some examples, objections will surface. I've included an example of each approach, so people can compare the two methods. I have not positioned them as spec text. The spec requires more examples no matter which approach the WG chooses. Good example. - Sam Ruby
PaceFeedRecursive is filled in
Sam Ruby wrote: I'm recommending AtomAsRDF and PaceFeedRecursive for closure merely because they are incomplete. If they become complete, I will update their status accordingly. Please do. Roy T. Fielding wrote: Unfortunately, I have a paper deadline on Tuesday and can't procrastinate any longer, so someone else can finish the details I didn't include the content by reference for atom:feed and atom:entry that was batted around on the list, but I wouldn't oppose it. Right now, it's just a refactoring of atom:head. I included versions of PaceExtensionConstruct and PaceExtendingAtom (mI), so the authors of those Paces should take a look. Robert Sayre
