Edward O'Connor wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
Don't move forward with the autodiscovery draft.
[...]
At this point there seems to be no reason for the autodiscovery draft
to exist, since the WHAT-WG has ably covered the subject in Web
Applications 1.0.
I am worried that there are three
2006/11/29, James M Snell:
The problem I have with the WHAT-WG definition of the alternate and feed
relations is the unintended conflict that occurs when the alternate
representation of a page happens to be an Atom Entry Document.
The HTML5 draft says,
If the alternate keyword is
] On Behalf Of Thomas Broyer
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2006 16:04
To: Atom-Syntax
Subject: Re: WHAT-WG, feed and alternate (was: Re:
PaceAutoDiscoveryDraftIsPointless)
2006/11/29, James M Snell:
The problem I have with the WHAT-WG definition of the alternate and feed
relations is the unintended
+0. I have no particular agenda on this other than helping to move it
forward if that's what folks want. I will note, however, that the
overall response to PaceResurrectAutodiscovery was positive and there
seemed (to me at least) to be interest in at least discussing the future
of the draft. So
2006/11/28, Robert Sayre:
Nonsense. You know very well that projects I work on will get bug
reports on standards compliance if you change something. So, yes, I do
have to waste my time here. Since I maintain autodiscovery code people
actually use, you'd think my opinion would count for
Edward O'Connor wrote:
I am worried that there are three simultaneous efforts to spec out feed
autodiscovery: WA1, the RSS board's recent spec, and this draft. Ideally
this stuff would get specced just once. WHAT WG seems like a neutral
ground, syndication-format wise, so perhaps they're best
Robert Sayre wrote:
Edward O'Connor wrote:
I am worried that there are three simultaneous efforts to spec out feed
autodiscovery: WA1, the RSS board's recent spec, and this draft. Ideally
this stuff would get specced just once. WHAT WG seems like a neutral
ground, syndication-format wise,
James M Snell wrote:
Heh.. I probably should not have been taking a drink when I read this
last sentence :-). You do know that we're talking about the
*syndication community* right?
Actually, it's an HTML issue, so I don't see why the RSS Board or the
Atom list or any incarnation of the
Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
If autodiscovery is only a browser feature then indeed it has nothing to
do here. But is it only meant for browsers?
Browsers are surely the primary target, but bots and other HTML UAs make
use of it. Both uses are covered by the people working on HTML, in the
If the Atom/RSS autodiscovery spec describes how to
work with the link element to achieve feed
autodiscovery in browsers and other clients, isn't it
an application of (X)HTML rather than an attempt to
specify (X)HTML?
My thinking was that we're accomplishing a task
similar to the creators of the
On Nov 28, 2006, at 22:11, Edward O'Connor wrote:
WHAT WG seems like a neutral ground, syndication-format wise, so
perhaps they're best positioned to spec feed autodiscovery in a way
that makes everybody happy.
+1 for leaving speccing this to the WHATWG.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL
Ted,
Please correct me if I get any of this incorrect, but for the sake of
the discussion I wanted to summarize the HTML5 [1][2] definitions here:
The following three links are equivalent to one another and specify that
the linked feed is an alternate representation of the page.
link
Rogers Cadenhead wrote:
My thinking was that we're accomplishing a task
similar to the creators of the Robots Exclusion meta
tag [1] -- put X values in element Y to achieve effect
Z.
Hmm, have to disagree. The behavior is already well-documented, so this
isn't accomplishing much. This
--- Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there some aspect of the WHAT-WG document that
bothers you?
Not yet, aside from the notion that they've got an
incredibly ambitious goal -- spec the next
HTML/XHTML/DOM -- and I have no idea how to gauge the
likelihood they'll achieve it. Or whether
James,
Please correct me if I get any of this incorrect, but for the sake of
[...]
What I did not see in the HTML5 spec is any indication of whether the
order of link relations is significant. I'm assuming that means that
it is not. I'm also assuming that means that all alternate feed link
The problem I have with the WHAT-WG definition of the alternate and feed
relations is the unintended conflict that occurs when the alternate
representation of a page happens to be an Atom Entry Document.
The HTML5 draft says,
If the alternate keyword is used with the type attribute set
On 11/28/06, Rogers Cadenhead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no idea how to gauge the
likelihood they'll achieve it. Or whether they'll
respect current autodiscovery functionality in MSIE 7
and Firefox 2.0.
My experience is that the IETF is essentially unresponsive to backward
compatibility
On 11/28/06, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
3. We define a new media type for Atom Entry Documents,
e.g. application/atomentry+xml
No one relies on Atom Entry alternates now, so this is the best
option. We should tack it onto the APP draft, since that will solve
issues with the
On Nov 28, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
They already know how, in general. The WHAT-WG is the place to work
out edge cases in HTML semantics.
Over the course of history, a remarkable number of different groups
have jumped up and down and said *We're* the ones defining HTML!!!
On 11/28/06, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 28, 2006, at 3:16 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
They already know how, in general. The WHAT-WG is the place to work
out edge cases in HTML semantics.
Over the course of history, a remarkable number of different groups
have jumped up and down
At 6:16 PM -0500 11/28/06, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 11/28/06, Rogers Cadenhead [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have no idea how to gauge the
likelihood they'll achieve it. Or whether they'll
respect current autodiscovery functionality in MSIE 7
and Firefox 2.0.
My experience is that the IETF is
Hello,
Over on the IETF Atom Syntax mailing list we're discussing whether or
not to pursue the autodiscovery draft that had previously been put on
the table [1] or to simply point to the HTML5 work and be done with it.
While reviewing the HTML5 draft and comparing that to the Atom
* James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-29 00:20]:
3. We define a new media type for Atom Entry Documents,
e.g. application/atomentry+xml
+1
* Robert Sayre [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006-11-29 00:40]:
We should tack it onto the APP draft, since that will solve
issues with the accept
Sylvain Hellegouarch wrote:
I have no will to wait and see whether or not the WHATWG recommendation
will eventually be applied. If we have to wait for one or two years to
get their final document then I don't see how an informational spec
could harm the community while waiting.
Don't freak
On 11/28/06, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are three possible solutions:
1. We ask the WHAT-WG to fix their spec so the ambiguity in the Atom
media type is addressed
What ambiguity? There's no ambiguity AFAICT.
But the WHAT spec does need fixing. Assuming rel=feed
Ian Hickson wrote:
[snip]
Here, while the last three are also valid feeds, it is the first one that
should be considered the default when doing auto-discovery. This isn't to
say that the feed UA should ignore the other three, or that it should only
show them if the user goes out of his
26 matches
Mail list logo
