On Feb 26, 2006, at 9:10 PM, James Yenne wrote:
My feeds contain a generic xml-stylesheet, which formats the feed
for display along with a feed-specific css. Since xsl processors
do not have a standard way to pass parameters to xsl stylesheets, I
provide this feed-specific css to the xsl
When you say what it was designed for can you be specific as to what that definition is? Sorry, new to the conversation, but I have particular interest in this topic as it is my belief that the URI/IRI can be used to imply a lot of information that is otherwise hidden from view, or uses more
I think what you're asking is, what's the resulting document's type or
!DOCTYPE? In my case, the xsl supplied in the xml-stylesheet directive does
the transformation and the resulting document is (strict) xhtml with the
correct doctype. Perhaps the CSS2 media attribute, if added to Atom links
James Yenne wrote:
[snip]
correct doctype. Perhaps the CSS2 media attribute, if added to Atom links
would provide this cue about the format... E.g. media=print, handheld.
Take a look at
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-link-extensions-02.txt
It's completely
For anyone interested, I created a validated Atom feed that
(http://softwareme.com/ie7test.xml)
exhibits the problems with IE's refactor as RSS2. After hitting the IE7
Subscribe button, the feed is then converted to RSS2 (http://softwareme.com/ie7testsubscribed.xml),
which doesn't validate
On Feb 27, 2006, at 8:29 AM, M. David Peterson wrote:
When you say what it was designed for can you be specific as to
what that definition is?
Well, we failed to gain consensus on that. Some of us wanted it to
be used only for links intended to be traversed by the user (like the
a element
On 2/27/06, Antone Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmm.If I'm reading that right, I wouldn't want to organize mywebsites that way.
Nor would I. I wouldn't advocate and actual directory structure as this, and instead a simple disection of the URI/IRI that would then be mapped to the proper
Sean Lyndersay wrote:
Thanks James. I’ve filed bugs in our bug tracking database for each of
the issues that came up in the feed validator (except for flagging
/atom:*/ items, since these are a correct use of RSS 2.0 extension
namespaces).
Re the flagging of atom: elements: this was indeed a
