Re: PaceFeedState

2004-11-24 Thread Mark Nottingham
all of the snapshots back in time) Best leave it up to the client. I don't think this follows, for reasons explained above. Only the server can determine what a complete set of entries is. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

PaceFeedState server-side proof-of-concept implementation

2004-11-24 Thread Mark Nottingham
FYI, I've put 'this' and 'prev' elements on my RSS feed as a proof-of-concept on the server side; see http://www.mnot.net/blog/index.rdf This was done with templates only on stock Moveable Type 2.6. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: PaceIRI status

2005-01-29 Thread Mark Nottingham
Not to advocate one position or another, but RFC 3987 doesn't obsolete RFC 3986; we have a choice. On Jan 24, 2005, at 4:17 PM, Tim Bray wrote: If there were no further discussion: It's hard to see how to avoid adopting this now that IRIs are standards-track RFC. -Tim -- Mark Nottingham

Comments on format-05

2005-01-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
The atom:info Element -- If it's not considered meaningful for processors, why does there need to be a standard element for it? At the very least, some sort of information about its semantics should be documented. My preference would be to drop it. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Comments on format-05

2005-01-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
On Jan 30, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Robert Sayre wrote: Mark Nottingham wrote: My gut feeling is that removing the markup from these elements will make the spec much simpler and easier to implement, without sacrificing many (if any) use cases. If I'm not aware of someone's use case here, I'm sorry

Re: Comments on format-05

2005-01-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
terms? -Tim -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

atom:host [was: Comments on format-05]

2005-01-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
to the entry or feed. Cheers, On Jan 30, 2005, at 3:58 PM, Bill de hÓra wrote: Robert Sayre wrote: Mark Nottingham wrote: * 4.11 The atom:host Element -- I'm surprised to see this in an IETF specification; people are going to make bad assumptions about the content of this, and violate layering

Re: Comments on format-05

2005-01-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
links. Cheers, On Jan 30, 2005, at 2:57 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: Here is a live example of atom:info in use: http://www.shellen.com/atom.xml View source. View in your favorite browser. - Sam Rubys -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Obs on format-05

2005-01-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
Documents ** 10 Security Considerations proposal: Perhaps we can move everything security related into section 10 and drop section 6. (pace forthingcoming) Sounds like a good idea, but I don't feel strongly about it if anyone wants it the way it is. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: atom:info [was Re: Comments on format-05]

2005-01-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
On Jan 30, 2005, at 7:03 PM, Graham wrote: On 31 Jan 2005, at 2:40 am, Mark Nottingham wrote: which is the same feed, but with atom:info replaced by a 'foo' element. Even better, you can drop foo and put the xhtml div as a direct child of feed. Then use feed div as the selector. Nice

Re: Dereferencing Identity Constructs

2005-01-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
a section with this name is asking for trouble. We could change it to Not Dereferencing Identity Constructs... How about Dereferencability of Identity Constructs? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: atom:info [was Re: Comments on format-05]

2005-01-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
, at 7:53 PM, Robert Sayre wrote: Mark Nottingham wrote: So, the relevant question seems to be whether any browsers do something interesting with +xml media types; No, the relevant question is whether +xml media types can be reliably dispatched without any knowledge of a specific scheme. I don't

Re: Comments on format-05

2005-01-31 Thread Mark Nottingham
to specify and enforce). If the concern about multiple content is solely that it will result in more bandwidth use, I think it's misplaced; people who are concerned about bandwidth won't publish multiple representations inline; forcing them not to by legislation is misguided. -- Mark

Feed State [was: Work Queue Rotation #16]

2005-01-31 Thread Mark Nottingham
of this specification, but may be defined by an extension to Atom. ]]] So, if we drop PaceFeedState, I propose the text above. -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems

Re: PaceEnclosuresAndPix status

2005-02-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
this idea, and I meant to update the draft. Would anyone be upset if I updated the draft to say an aspect ratio of 2 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical)? -Tim -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Posted PaceEntryOrder (was Entry order)

2005-02-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
elements within the feed. Processors MAY present entries in a different order to which they are appear in an Atom Feed Document. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: PaceRemoveVersionAttr

2005-02-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
/| things.--Oliver Wendell Holmes -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: PaceRemoveInfoAndHost

2005-02-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
. In the threads on atom:info, it seems I am playing the role of solo raving loony. So, let's have the process take over. Robert Sayre -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Call for final Paces for consideration: deadline imminent

2005-02-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium -- Walter Underwood Principal Architect, Verity -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed State [was: Work Queue Rotation #16]

2005-02-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
This is now PaceNoFeedState; http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceNoFeedState On Jan 31, 2005, at 3:46 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: x. Managing Feed State Atom Processors MAY keep state (e.g., metadata in atom:head, entries) sourced from Atom Feed Documents and combine them with other Atom

Re: PaceFeedState status

2005-02-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
the complete state of a feed -joe On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:42 -0800, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there were no further discussion: Like PaceSupersede, this model of publishing does not (so far) enjoy consensus support. -Tim -- Joe Gregoriohttp://bitworking.org -- Mark

Re: On organization and abstraction

2005-02-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
to a typical human mental model. The word feed has entered the vocabulary, even the non-geek vocabulary, and the notion that there are things (entries, stories, items, whatever) in feeds likewise. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: PaceProfile - new

2005-02-04 Thread Mark Nottingham
flexible approach - it moves us away from agents coordinating together to agents enforcing policy on one another via a profiling mechanism. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Call for final Paces for consideration: deadline imminent

2005-02-04 Thread Mark Nottingham
, this will seem quite natural. If you want to only see one instance of an atom:id's content in the set of all entries ever published in any feed, you need to say that explicitly. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: PaceExtendingAtom

2005-02-04 Thread Mark Nottingham
? On Feb 3, 2005, at 11:27 PM, Tim Bray wrote: On Feb 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: This specification describes Atom's XML markup vocabulary. Markup from other vocabularies (foreign markup) can be used in Atom in a variety of ways. Text Constructs may contain

Re: PaceExtendingAtom

2005-02-04 Thread Mark Nottingham
. I've said my piece on this one; I'm interested in responses to my other questions and points. Cheers, On Feb 4, 2005, at 2:15 PM, Robert Sayre wrote: Mark Nottingham wrote: It certainly gives the impression that there's a preference; it's like saying The language of the feed SHOULD be English

Re: Call for final Paces for consideration: deadline imminent

2005-02-04 Thread Mark Nottingham
When you talk about characters being the same or different, are you saying in the entry, or in the id? On Feb 4, 2005, at 2:18 PM, Graham wrote: On 4 Feb 2005, at 10:09 pm, Mark Nottingham wrote: The term version seems out of place here. What you're saying, in effect, is that the ID acts

Re: PaceProfile - new

2005-02-04 Thread Mark Nottingham
monitoring or blog entry? How would a UA present this? On Feb 4, 2005, at 8:15 AM, Bill de hÓra wrote: Mark Nottingham wrote: Bill, I'm sorry, I don't think I get what you're saying; the words all make sense, but I don't know how you got here. [../] The Pace doesn't place any requirements on Atom

Re: Call for final Paces for consideration: deadline imminent

2005-02-04 Thread Mark Nottingham
to display more than one version of each resource. Comments? Preferences? Better ideas? Is it ready for a Pace? -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems

mustUnderstand, mustIgnore [was: Posted PaceEntryOrder]

2005-02-05 Thread Mark Nottingham
On Feb 5, 2005, at 6:26 AM, Joe Gregorio wrote: On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:25:50 -0800, Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My preference would be something like This specification assigns no significance to the order of atom:entry elements within an Atom Feed Document. Atom Processors MAY

Re: Posted PaceEntryOrder (was Entry order)

2005-02-05 Thread Mark Nottingham
interested in archiving all the entries, then any new feed be it an old one or a new one will be of interest: it will just be added to the database. +1 -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

PaceProfile updated

2005-02-12 Thread Mark Nottingham
, in the form When present, atom:title MUST occur exactly once. Profiles only constrain what metadata elements are required in the feed. Regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: PaceProfile updated

2005-02-13 Thread Mark Nottingham
On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:52 AM, Eric Scheid wrote: On 13/2/05 11:49 AM, Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The biggest change from the previous approach is that cardinality of metadata elements is specified by those elements, in the form When present, atom:title MUST occur exactly once

Re: PaceProfile updated

2005-02-13 Thread Mark Nottingham
On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:03 AM, Anne van Kesteren wrote: Mark Nottingham wrote: Apologies for the delay; I've been sick since Monday. I've revised PaceProfile to make it more complete, as requested. http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceProfile The biggest change from the previous approach

Re: PaceProfile updated

2005-02-13 Thread Mark Nottingham
it, but are not required to do so. I'll beef this text up to be more explicit, along the lines above. Thanks! -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: s/url/web/

2005-03-19 Thread Mark Nottingham
for inclusion, rather than doing it via attribute/element name choice. Note that the deferencability of identifiers changes over time, as infrastructure is deployed (or rots away); eg. DOIs, gopher:, java: URIs... Dan -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: application/rss+xml

2005-03-29 Thread Mark Nottingham
-Draft with a media type registration would register the type, yes. Whether we should try to register application/ rss+xml is a different question though. D'oh, Randy wanted rss+xml, not atom+xml. Missed the point. -Tim -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: application/rss+xml

2005-03-29 Thread Mark Nottingham
it's more an issue of whether the CC Attribution + ShareAlike 1.0 license terms are satisified by the I-D boilerplate. I've just asked CC that very question... On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:01 PM, Robert Sayre wrote: Mark Nottingham wrote: I tried; the official response [1] was that the IESG wanted

Re: PaceAlternateLinkWeakening - was Managing entries/entry state

2005-03-31 Thread Mark Nottingham
On Mar 31, 2005, at 10:07 AM, Henry Story wrote: The value alternate signifies that the containing element is an alternative representation of the IRI in the value of the href attribute. ...an alternate representation of the resource identified by the IRI in the value...? -- Mark Nottingham

Re: AD Review Comments and Questions: draft-ietf-atompub-format-07

2005-04-06 Thread Mark Nottingham
this earlier). Finally, has someone doubled-checked with IANA that the http://www.iana.org/assignments/relation/; URI is available and appropriate? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: summary of editors' action items ...so far

2005-04-06 Thread Mark Nottingham
. 60561 http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/ AIM: MarkupPedant -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: AD Review Comments and Questions: draft-ietf-atompub-format-07

2005-04-06 Thread Mark Nottingham
the request ASAP. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

ABNF, Validity, Relation Registry [was: AD Review Comments and Questions: draft-ietf-atompub-format-07]

2005-04-11 Thread Mark Nottingham
approach is to change it so that IETF Consensus, rather than IESG approval, is required to register a link relation). Anybody have thoughts? On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: Section 1.2: please reference draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis-00.txt instead of RFC 2234 and confirm

Re: AD Review Comments and Questions: draft-ietf-atompub-format-07

2005-04-11 Thread Mark Nottingham
Oops; I meant draft-freed-media-type-reg. On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:13 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: Section 4: RFC 2045 is referenced. 2045 is on its way to being obsoleted by draft-freed-mime-p4 (in the RFC Editor queue) and draft-freed-media-type-reg (in last call). Can the more recent documents

Re: What is a media type?

2005-04-11 Thread Mark Nottingham
Is media type an accurate term for us to use? I'm asking this because I really don't know whether parameters are supposed to be allowed in the type attribute or not. -- Dave -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: IRI/URI

2005-04-12 Thread Mark Nottingham
knowledgeable people ;) -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Fwd: For review: application/atom+xml

2005-04-25 Thread Mark Nottingham
, I noticed something else that I missed my first time through ... On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 08:41:08PM -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote: Additional information: Magic number(s): As specified for application/xml in [RFC3023], section 3.2. Based on my understanding of the purpose of magic numbers

Re: For review: application/atom+xml

2005-04-26 Thread Mark Nottingham
+1 On Apr 25, 2005, at 5:10 PM, Tim Bray wrote: On Apr 25, 2005, at 3:49 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote: Comments on the media type template. He's got a point on the namespace being mentioned, which creates some semi-circular dependencies, sigh. As to whether it's currently in use, largely due

Re: On SHOULD, MUST, and semantics

2005-04-27 Thread Mark Nottingham
valuable like atom:title, it should be a MUST. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems

Re: PaceOtherVocabularies

2005-05-16 Thread Mark Nottingham
markup from the Atom vocabulary will be considered foreign markup. == Impacts == == Notes == -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

FWD: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-00.txt

2005-06-28 Thread Mark Nottingham
. ___ I-D-Announce mailing list I-D-Announce at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-00.txt

2005-06-28 Thread Mark Nottingham
to reconstruct the full state of the feed, and SHOULD warn the user. Also, I just noticed that in some places, the word representation is used, and in some places instance is used, apparently to mean the same thing. In my opinion, instance is better. I'll take a look. Thanks again! -- Mark

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-00.txt

2005-06-28 Thread Mark Nottingham
Thanks Garrett, I'll take this into account if I do another draft. Cheers, On 28/06/2005, at 1:39 PM, Garrett Rooney wrote: Mark Nottingham wrote: A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet- Drafts directories. Title : Feed History: Enabling Stateful

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-00.txt

2005-06-29 Thread Mark Nottingham
all the work, and especially assuming a batches of 15 sort of model, the this link seems likely to end up pointing to a document that's going to disappear soon 14 times out of 15. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-00.txt

2005-06-29 Thread Mark Nottingham
reviews, because it requires a lot of work to maintain, and can be a bandwidth hog. I'm of two minds about it. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-00.txt

2005-06-29 Thread Mark Nottingham
. Would not that be as reliable as checking the this link? On Wednesday, June 29, 2005, at 12:10 AM, Mark Nottingham wrote: You need to be able to figure out which documents you've seen before and which ones you haven't, so you don't recurse down the entire stack. Although you can come up

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-00.txt

2005-06-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
: atomex:treatAsstateful list/atomex:treatAs Indicates that the feed should be treated as a list whose past states can be queried using the kind of mechanism you've defined. That seems like an awfully heavyweight solution. What does defining the container and an IANA registry add? -- Mark Nottingham

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-00.txt

2005-06-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
lifetime where vendors and individuals have to experiment to figure out what's valuable, and let the market sort out what becomes commonly deployed. It's not pretty, but it works pretty well in the long run. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-00.txt

2005-07-01 Thread Mark Nottingham
it in the format? Regards, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Clearing a discuss vote on the Atom format

2005-07-01 Thread Mark Nottingham
on the receiver. That would change the wording to: Atom Processors that verify signed Atom Documents MUST be able to canonicalize with Canonical XML. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems

Re: Major backtracking on canonicalization

2005-07-07 Thread Mark Nottingham
Consortium -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems

Re: Major backtracking on canonicalization

2005-07-07 Thread Mark Nottingham
On 07/07/2005, at 11:36 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote: At 10:23 AM -0400 7/7/05, Mark Nottingham wrote: Are we specifying exclusive c14n with or without comments? My preference would be without. Without. That is explicitly the default for http://www.w3.org/TR/ 2002/REC-xml-exc-c14n-20020718

Re: format-10 draft editorial request

2005-07-08 Thread Mark Nottingham
with all SHOULDs. In particular, the feed SHOULD contain a link with a rel='self'. If I find other deviations from the recommended practices, I'll note them here. - Sam Ruby -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems -- Mark Nottingham http

Re: Atom for RDF transfer?

2005-07-09 Thread Mark Nottingham
] http://www.joseki.org/protocol.html [9] http://sw.nokia.com/uriqa/URIQA.html -- http://dannyayers.com -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Feed History -02

2005-07-16 Thread Mark Nottingham
as to gather implementation feedback. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History -02

2005-07-18 Thread Mark Nottingham
thought about the comments on the plane yesterday, and I agree. However, I'm wary of special URI values; also, I want to preserve stateful=false. So, what about saying that you can omit fh:stateful *if* fh:prev is in the feed? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History -02

2005-07-18 Thread Mark Nottingham
documents never change once created. Then a client can terminate the sync once it sees a URI it already knows. And most clients would not do more lookups than they are doing now... -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History -02

2005-07-18 Thread Mark Nottingham
: fh:historyfh:none//fh:history Hmm. My thinking was that allowing stateful to be omitted would be concise and unambiguous; to compare, stateful feed: fh:prevhttp://example.org/thingie1.1/fh:prev stateful initial feed: fh:statefultrue/fh:stateful stateless feed: fh:statefulfalse/fh:stateful -- Mark

Re: Feed History -02

2005-07-23 Thread Mark Nottingham
(e.g., ordering, deletion, exact semantics of an archive feed, etc.), so that they could be separately defined. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-nottingham-atompub-feed-history-01.txt

2005-07-23 Thread Mark Nottingham
the entire feed (which I agree would be a problem). Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: spec bug: can we fix for draft-11?

2005-08-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
. As a consequence, it is recommended that protocol designers provide specific guidelines to address white space handling within protocols that use XML. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History -02

2005-08-03 Thread Mark Nottingham
to resources. It is that general. Both require coding effort. e. -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems

Re: Feed History -02

2005-08-09 Thread Mark Nottingham
of the data (the archive feed). E.g., atom:feed ... archive:yes_im_an_archive/ /atom:feed By (current) definition, anything that history:prev points to is an archive. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History -02

2005-08-09 Thread Mark Nottingham
and HTTP. It is helpful to have a transport independent expiration/max-age mechanism whose semantics operate on the application layer rather than the transport layer. - James -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems

Re: Feed History -02

2005-08-10 Thread Mark Nottingham
. Speaking *strictly* about cache control of Atom documents, +1. No document level mechanisms for cache control are necessary. - James Mark Nottingham wrote: HTTP isn't a transport protocol, it's a transfer protocol; i.e., the caching information (and other entity metadata) are *part

Feed History -03

2005-08-15 Thread Mark Nottingham
and otherwise helped so far. Sorry! -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History -03

2005-08-16 Thread Mark Nottingham
=./ archives/archive1.atom Henry Story [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16643.html On 15 Aug 2005, at 22:31, Mark Nottingham wrote: Draft -03 of feed history is now available, at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub- feed-history-03.txt

Re: Feed History -03

2005-08-16 Thread Mark Nottingham
an archive is would necessitate ruling some types of archives out, and that wasn't my main use case for this; rather, it was to make sure that archive feeds (as defined for the purposes of this spec) wouldn't be accidentally subscribed to. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History -03

2005-08-16 Thread Mark Nottingham
the applicability of context based on the presence or absence of other markup isn't good practice, and will lead to practical problems. E.g., what if I want to have an optional attribute on an empty element? Is it simple or complex? This interpretation of extensions seems very fragile to me. -- Mark

Re: If you want Fat Pings just use Atom!

2005-08-22 Thread Mark Nottingham
, the stream from there on out would be identical. - Sam Ruby -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems

Re: If you want Fat Pings just use Atom!

2005-08-22 Thread Mark Nottingham
, are very hard to keep open permanently or for a very long period of time. One is often considered lucky if you can keep an HTTP connection open for 5 minutes without having to re-initialize... -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems

Feed History: stateful - incremental?

2005-08-24 Thread Mark Nottingham
it? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History: stateful - incremental?

2005-08-25 Thread Mark Nottingham
On 25/08/2005, at 3:00 AM, Stefan Eissing wrote: Am 25.08.2005 um 00:07 schrieb Mark Nottingham: Just bouncing an idea around; it seems that there's a fair amount of confusion / fuzziness caused by the term 'stateful'. Would people prefer the term 'incremental'? I.e., instead

Re: Don't Aggregrate Me

2005-08-25 Thread Mark Nottingham
). And it does not give me anything very intersting when I look at it in either Safari or Firefox. Thanks for pointing this out. :-) :-) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // http://plasmasturm.org/ -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems

Re: Feed History: stateful - incremental?

2005-08-27 Thread Mark Nottingham
by an implementor) -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Top 10 and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

2005-08-30 Thread Mark Nottingham
lists – they are feeds. bob wyman -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: The benefits of Lists are Entries rather than Lists are Feeds

2005-08-31 Thread Mark Nottingham
, August 30, 2005 5:10 PM To: 'Mark Nottingham' Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org Subject: RE: Top 10 and other lists should be entries, not feeds. Mark Nottingham wrote: Are you saying that when/if Netflix switches over to Atom, they shouldn't use it for the Queue? No. I'm saying that if Netflix

Feed History -04

2005-09-06 Thread Mark Nottingham
- more explicit white space handling - Acknowledgements section More information, including implementation details, at: http://www.mnot.net/blog/2005/09/05/feed_history -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History -04

2005-09-10 Thread Mark Nottingham
of the feed. thoughts? - James Mark Nottingham wrote: Feed History -04 is out, at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub- feed- history-04.txt Changes: - fh:stateful - fh:incremental, with appropriate changes in text - more explicit cardinality information

Re: FYI: Updated Index draft

2005-09-22 Thread Mark Nottingham
without must-understand extensions, which Atom 1.0 doesn't support. That would be another way to go, but people didn't want mU. Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: FYI: Updated Index draft

2005-09-22 Thread Mark Nottingham
as interesting. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History -04

2005-09-29 Thread Mark Nottingham
that all accepted extensions would use, in order to reduce name space clutter. Henry On 7 Sep 2005, at 01:18, Mark Nottingham wrote: Feed History -04 is out, at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nottingham-atompub- feed-history-04.txt Changes: - fh:stateful - fh:incremental

Re: ACE - Atom Common Extensions Namespace

2005-10-02 Thread Mark Nottingham
their rights. Acknowledgment Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the Internet Society. Snell Expires March 5, 2006 [Page 5] -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems -- Mark Nottingham

Re: Next and Previous

2005-10-04 Thread Mark Nottingham
PROTECTED] - http://engrm.com/blogometer/ -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Next and Previous

2005-10-04 Thread Mark Nottingham
of the document is fh while the one in all the examples is history. Technically still valid, but I figure you'd probably want them all to be the same. I did that on purpose :) Cheers, -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Unofficial last call on draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-04.txt

2005-10-06 Thread Mark Nottingham
: http://dublincore.org/usage/meetings/2005/09/madrid/files/ 2005-07-29.date-comment.txt Personally I think that makes the idea of using dublin core for this extension a whole lot more palatable. -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Feed History -04

2005-10-09 Thread Mark Nottingham
on diveintomark.org which actually include next and prev links in the feed. I'm almost inclined to add support for that just so I can access those old posts. There used to be some excellent articles on his site. -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems -- Mark

Re: Feed History -04

2005-10-09 Thread Mark Nottingham
registration. Does that mean they've actually started some kind of registration process or they're just hoping to do so at some point in the future? -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/

Re: Straw Poll: age:expires vs. dcterms:valid (was Re: Unofficial last call on draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-04.txt)

2005-10-09 Thread Mark Nottingham
Yeah, that kind of tears it for me; we could profile it, but I'm less than convinced that the potential reuse is worth it (esp. when it's so trivial to map age:expires into dcterms:valid). +1 to age:expires. On 09/10/2005, at 10:21 AM, Phil Ringnalda wrote: Mark Nottingham wrote

Re: Feed History -04

2005-10-13 Thread Mark Nottingham
is that their example RSS feed is also using atom:link to provide this functionality. Robert Sayre wrote: No, but Amazon OpenSearch has been threatening to register it, FWIW. :) -- Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist Office of the CTO BEA Systems -- Mark

  1   2   >