Urgh, sorry for my tardiness; I'm falling behind on my reading.
On 11/30/06, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd prefer basing autodiscovery on the media types and not at all on
the relationships.
All a media type tells you (non-authoritatively too) is the spec you
need to interpret
I'm still listening to the debate, but Mark's argument resonates with me.
It seems like 'content-type' is more about the expected syntax of the
resource at the other end of the wire, not it's semantic meaning. I don't
see Atom feeds and entries as syntactically different enough to warrant
unique
Kyle Marvin wrote:
[snip]
I expect that if you associated a 'rel' value with links that point to
application/atom+xml, whether it is expected to be a feed or an entry
would probably be part of the 'rel' description and thus not ambiguous
at all. I think the discussion started because of
On 12/1/06, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kyle Marvin wrote:
[snip]
I expect that if you associated a 'rel' value with links that point to
application/atom+xml, whether it is expected to be a feed or an entry
would probably be part of the 'rel' description and thus not ambiguous
On Dec 1, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Kyle Marvin wrote:
I see the separation but I'm still missing a clear justifiication
for it. I don't see content-type as having anything to do with the
audience. It's about what media format you'd get back if you
dereference the href and rel is about how you
You're right that the differentiation in the content-type is of less
importance but without it there's no way for me to unambiguously
indicate that a resource has both an Atom Feed representation and an
Atom Entry representation. The best I could do is say This things has
two Atom
Hi James,
On Dec 1, 2006, at 11:25 AM, James M Snell wrote:
You're right that the differentiation in the content-type is of less
importance but without it there's no way for me to unambiguously
indicate that a resource has both an Atom Feed representation and an
Atom Entry representation. The
On 12/1/06, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right that the differentiation in the content-type is of less
importance but without it there's no way for me to unambiguously
indicate that a resource has both an Atom Feed representation and an
Atom Entry representation.
I can see
Ok I suggest trying December 6th.
Onion or no Onion rings at Tied House.
What is dinner time in the bay? 6pm? 7pm?
Henry
On 28 Nov 2006, at 21:31, John Panzer wrote:
Any of those would be good for me. Be careful of the deep fried onion
rings at Tied House, though.
Henry Story wrote:
I could but after the discussions this week I'm not sure its worth it.
Yes, everything can be done using different rel values; the content-type
thing is more just an annoyance than anything else. I'll just make sure
that I never link my Atom entry documents using alternate (even tho
that's what
On 12/1/06, Mark Baker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/30/06, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All a media type tells you (non-authoritatively too) is the spec you
need to interpret the document at the other end of the link. That has
very little to do with the reasons that you might want
11 matches
Mail list logo
