RE: PaceHeadless

2005-02-08 Thread Bob Wyman
James M Snell wrote: My preference would be a link based alternative. feed ... entry ... link rel=feed href=... / /entry /feed I'm tired of arguing this one, so, I'm just going to say this one more time and leave it at that. Linking to the feed is not an

RE: PaceHeadless

2005-02-08 Thread Walter Underwood
--On Tuesday, February 08, 2005 08:39:42 AM -0500 Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Linking to the feed is not an acceptable solution. It must be possible to embed feed metadata in an entry in a feed and in an Entry document. +1 The feed document *must* be standalone. Everything required to

Re: PaceHeadless

2005-02-08 Thread James M Snell
Well, I ain't gonna argue the point, but I'm going to stick by the assertion that feeder/head is ugly. Any use of this stuff I plan to make can live equally well with either approach. - James M Snell Walter Underwood wrote: --On Tuesday, February 08, 2005 08:39:42 AM -0500 Bob Wyman [EMAIL

Re: PaceHeadless

2005-02-07 Thread Eric Scheid
PaceHeadless -1

Re: PaceHeadless

2005-02-07 Thread Robert Sayre
+1, there's no reason for atom:head. Robert Sayre

Re: PaceHeadless

2005-02-07 Thread Eric Scheid
-1 atom:feeder is ugly

Re: PaceHeadless

2005-02-07 Thread James M Snell
Agree, feeder is ugly. but head should still go away. My preference would be a link based alternative. feed ... entry ... link rel=feed href=... / /entry /feed - James M Snell Eric Scheid wrote: -1 atom:feeder is ugly

Re: PaceHeadless

2005-02-04 Thread Robert Sayre
Graham wrote: -1 Putting everything in one group and requiring it to be first is useful, and also adds consistency to head-in-entry, as evidenced by the introduction of the feeder element. Also feeder is a horrible word. And head doesn't suck? I struggle to type a sentence on the subject