On 21 January 2011 14:54, Tim Brody t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk wrote:
I don't think bundling things into a .zip saves you work because it just
moves the complexity into a different domain. You will get 90% of the way
to moving objects from one system to another with low loss by using Atom +
Dublin
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart ian.stu...@ed.ac.uk
Date: 11 January 2011 03:04
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
We're looking at two things here, are we not?
1) we want the data returned in s specific media type
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Tarrant d...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Date: 11 January 2011 03:20
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ian Stuart ian.stu...@ed.ac.uk
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
I agree with Ian, why can we just use the existing x-packaging
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott Wilson scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com
Date: 11 January 2011 03:55
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
To answer the CMIS question - AFAIK CMIS doesn't explicitly support
external packaging
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart ian.stu...@ed.ac.uk
Date: 11 January 2011 04:01
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
More specifically. the Open Access Repository Junction Discovery
APIs use the Accept header to
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones rich...@oneoverzero.com
Date: 12 January 2011 09:52
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Graham Klyne g...@ninebynine.org
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Graham,
On 11/01/11 19:05, Graham Klyne wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart ian.stu...@ed.ac.uk
Date: 19 January 2011 01:11
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 10/01/11 18:49, Richard Jones wrote:
It's looking like a separate header is the way to do this,
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones rich...@oneoverzero.com
Date: 19 January 2011 21:06
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ian Stuart ian.stu...@ed.ac.uk
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Ian,
On 18/01/11 12:11, Ian Stuart wrote:
On 10/01/11
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart ian.stu...@ed.ac.uk
Date: 19 January 2011 21:44
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19/01/11 08:06, Richard Jones wrote:
and your content negotiation header says:
Accept: A; q=1.0,
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart ian.stu...@ed.ac.uk
Date: 19 January 2011 23:33
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Scott Wilson scott.bradley.wil...@gmail.com
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19/01/11 10:16, Scott Wilson wrote:
I have an
-- Forwarded message --
From: Robert D. Sanderson rsander...@lanl.gov
Date: 20 January 2011 04:53
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
I don't think you can ever get away from a degree of content negotiation,
but it doesn't
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones rich...@oneoverzero.com
Date: 20 January 2011 06:26
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: Ed Summers e...@pobox.com
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Ed,
On 19/01/11 13:27, Ed Summers wrote:
On Wed, Jan 19,
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart ian.stu...@ed.ac.uk
Date: 20 January 2011 22:00
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 19/01/11 17:26, Richard Jones wrote:
Also, as per my earlier comment about export plugins in
-- Forwarded message --
From: Ian Stuart ian.stu...@ed.ac.uk
Date: 21 January 2011 21:46
Subject: Re: content negotiating for package formats
To: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
On 20/01/11 18:11, Julie Allinson wrote:
I might be talking nonsense here, but is this something that
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones rich...@oneoverzero.com
Date: 20 January 2011 02:30
Subject: Re: Key Changes and Justifications
To: rsander...@lanl.gov
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Folks,
* Content Negotiating for Package Formats
RFC2533 seems massive
-- Forwarded message --
From: Richard Jones rich...@oneoverzero.com
Date: 22 January 2011 01:57
Subject: Re: Key Changes and Justifications
To: Tim Brody t...@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Cc: techadvisorypa...@swordapp.org
Hi Tim,
While this is all lovely...
Why is it that Google docs API
16 matches
Mail list logo
