James M Snell wrote:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational
Move Autodiscovery forward as an Informational RFC
But if it were published as an informational RFC, what purpose would it
serve?
I intend to post a much more substantial review of the current
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:37:03 +0100, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
== Proposal ==
Change the status of the autodiscovery draft to Informational.
+1
--
Anne van Kesteren
http://annevankesteren.nl/
http://www.opera.com/
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
[snip]
Move Autodiscovery forward as an Informational RFC
But if it were published as an informational RFC, what purpose would it
serve?
To document best practice as it relates specifically to syndication
feeds. For example, HTML5 says nothing about whether the
On 28 Nov 2006, at 16:37, James M Snell wrote:
== Proposal ==
Change the status of the autodiscovery draft to Informational.
+1
There's really no need for it to be a standard, as it's widely
implemented in a common way.
- Geoffrey Sneddon
James M Snell wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
[snip]
Move Autodiscovery forward as an Informational RFC
But if it were published as an informational RFC, what purpose would it
serve?
To document best practice as it relates specifically to syndication
feeds.
The draft
Robert Sayre wrote:
[snip]
To document best practice as it relates specifically to syndication
feeds.
The draft makes several requirements. That's not documenting best
practice.
[snip]
If the doc is changed to informative, the normative requirements in the
draft would need to be relaxed
James M Snell wrote:
I didn't write the doc so please don't complain to me about what's in
there. If there is something that needs to be changed write up a pace.
Uh, no. I don't think you should write it at all, and I resent having to
waste my time following this completely redundant
I do believe that participation in this discussion is optional, as is
choosing whether or not to support any particular IETF draft
(informational or otherwise) so there is absolutely no need (or desire)
for you to waste your time here. Your opinion that the document is
unnecessary has been
2006/11/28, Robert Sayre:
The WHAT-WG text is fine.
-1
For various reasons, including:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg19100.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg19107.html
--
Thomas Broyer
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
http://www.rssboard.org/news/70/vote-rss-autodiscovery-specification#discuss
Like the Atom Autodiscovery draft, this spec serves no purpose.
Autodiscovery is being defined in the HTML5 spec where it belongs, with
both the alternate
Ok, so given that I think this is the fifth or sixth note in which
you've said exactly the same thing, I think your position has been well
established. What would be excellent is if you'd give others the
opportunity to weigh in on it before trying so hard to filibuster it.
- James
Robert Sayre
James M Snell wrote:
Ok, so given that I think this is the fifth or sixth note in which
you've said exactly the same thing, I think your position has been well
established. What would be excellent is if you'd give others the
opportunity to weigh in on it before trying so hard to filibuster it.
James M Snell wrote:
Ok, so given that I think this is the fifth or sixth note in which
you've said exactly the same thing, I think your position has been well
established. What would be excellent is if you'd give others the
opportunity to weigh in on it before trying so hard to filibuster it.
At 4:56 PM -0500 11/28/06, Robert Sayre wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
Ok, so given that I think this is the fifth or sixth note in which
you've said exactly the same thing, I think your position has been well
established. What would be excellent is if you'd give others the
opportunity to weigh
14 matches
Mail list logo
