Re: [whatwg] Problems with the Atom Conversion algorithm.

2010-06-11 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Edward O'Connor wrote: >> 2. The of atom entries is constrained to contain text only, > > That's not quite right. is an Atom Text Construct, which, > despite having the word 'text' in its name, can contain all sorts of > things. is the same as , , > and , so the

Re: [whatwg] Problems with the Atom Conversion algorithm.

2010-06-11 Thread Edward O'Connor
> 2. The of atom entries is constrained to contain text only, That's not quite right. is an Atom Text Construct, which, despite having the word 'text' in its name, can contain all sorts of things. is the same as , , and , so the algo should handle it in the same way as it does .

[whatwg] Problems with the Atom Conversion algorithm.

2010-06-11 Thread Tab Atkins Jr.
On http://www.詹姆斯.com/blog/2010/06/html5-atom-gone-wrong, a comparison is made between an example Atom feed (presumably constructed from blog metadata) and one constructed by the HTML algorithm reading over the example blog page. Not all of these differences are valid, but some are, and should be

Re: [whatwg] [hybi] WebSockets: UDP

2010-06-11 Thread Mark Frohnmayer
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 3:18 AM, Erik Möller wrote: > Absolutely, that's why the path-MTU attribute was suggested. The ~64k limit > is an absolute limit though at which sends can be rejected immediately > without even trying. Ah, gotcha. I was trying to separate the cases of MTU before fragmenta

Re: [whatwg] ISSUE-86, Re: hixie: Remove the HTML-to-Atom mapping definition from the W3C version of the spec. (whatwg r5100)

2010-06-11 Thread Julian Reschke
On 05.06.2010 09:26, Julian Reschke wrote: On 02.06.2010 07:23, Julian Reschke wrote: Hi Ian, thanks for the removal. I notice that you kept the text in the WHATWG version of the spec. Various problems have been reported with respect to the mapping, notably

Re: [whatwg] [hybi] WebSockets: UDP

2010-06-11 Thread Erik Möller
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:25:41 +0200, Lars Eggert wrote: Hi, on a purely managerial level, let me point out that this work is far beyond the current charter of the HYBI WG. This defines an entirely new protocol, and will definitely require a charter discussion. (If there is community/dev

Re: [whatwg] [hybi] WebSockets: UDP

2010-06-11 Thread Erik Möller
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:21:38 +0200, Mark Frohnmayer wrote: TorqueSocket is not in the same category as RakNet or OpenTNL Ah, sorry I got the names mixed up, I meant to say RakNet/OpenTNL and not RakNet/TorqueSocket. I'd recommend doing some real-world testing for max packet size. Back