On 16 Mar 2005, at 5:13 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
Graham wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005, at 1:03 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
PaceHeadless. The chairs agree that both reads are reasonable, and
are ok with this divergence.
The working group aren't. Revert PaceHeadless immediately.
All of the objections concerned
Graham wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005, at 5:13 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
Graham wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005, at 1:03 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
PaceHeadless. The chairs agree that both reads are reasonable, and
are ok with this divergence.
The working group aren't. Revert PaceHeadless immediately.
All of the
-06.html
TXT
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.txt
DIFF
http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06-from-5.diff.html
Robert Sayre
On 16 Mar 2005, at 1:03 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
PaceHeadless. The chairs agree that both reads are reasonable, and are
ok with this divergence.
The working group aren't. Revert PaceHeadless immediately.
Graham
What's the problem exactly? The spec looks quite nice to me on the
whole.
((Perfection would come with an OWL semantics as shown by RSS1.1, but
otherwise it looks
ok.))
Henry Story
On 16 Mar 2005, at 16:17, Graham wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005, at 1:03 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
PaceHeadless. The chairs
4.1.1 The atom:feed element is the document (i.e., top-level)
element of an Atom Feed Document, acting as a container for metadata
and data associated with the feed. Its element children consist of one
or more metadata elements followed by zero or more atom:entry child
elements.
A little
Graham wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005, at 1:03 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
PaceHeadless. The chairs agree that both reads are reasonable, and are
ok with this divergence.
The working group aren't. Revert PaceHeadless immediately.
Graham,
I have no desire to contradict the decisions of this WG. I acknowledge
