On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 15:52:58 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>
> > Thing is, with the spec as it currently stands, we don't have a link
> > from the feed that can be guarenteed to point to the feed URI itself.
>
> That's not a very robust way to accomplish the
On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
of copying.
I see no downside. There are going to be scenarios where it's not
reliable, but there are going to be
PaceExtensionConstruct hopes to provide a basis for a mapping Atom to
models such as RDF [1], ER, and OO. I'm currently doing some work to see
whether there is anything in Atom that makes this unnecessarily
difficult.
I think that Atom's use of xml:lang is likely to be a significant
problem to m
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 08:37:47 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>
> > Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
> > solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
> > of copying.
>
> I see no
I've just updated this proposal thanks to some of the feedback that I
received. There is a change history at the end of the document.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtensionConstruct
--
Dave
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:59:12 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Bray wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
> >
> >> Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
> >> solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
>
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
of copying.
I see no downside. There are going to be scenarios where it's not
reliable, but ther
Danny Ayers wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 13:59:12 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
of
First pass (this is what should be on the Wiki - it decided to lock me out):
#pragma section-numbers off
== Abstract ==
Adds a element in pointing to the feed itself, primarily
to enable subscription based on the XML alone.
== Status ==
Open.
== Rationale ==
When processing a HTTP respon
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 14:16:37 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Well, it does make it easy for me to put entries in your feed.
> >
> >
> > ...and to confirm they weren't there to start with.
>
> How so? Do I go back and confirm with the server? Why did I downoad a
> whole feed to
Danny Ayers wrote:
This creates a unique situation for users, where they can download a
feed, but possibly not subscribe to it.
Right now there's no way to subscribe from say IE.
That's not the point. That does not result in a support call to the
aggregator vendor, because it's IE's problem.
Danny Ayers wrote:
> we don't have a link from the feed that can be guarenteed to point
> to the feed URI itself.
If these links were in the feed's element it would make life
easier for us at PubSub.com. We currently insert a link pointing to the
source feed into every entry that we inser
Saturday, January 15, 2005, 6:59:12 PM, you wrote:
> Tim Bray wrote:
>> On Jan 15, 2005, at 1:05 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
>>
>>> Seems to me like making a source-URI reference a SHOULD would help
>>> solve an immediate problem, irrespective of the hypothetical problem
>>> of copying.
>>
>>
>>
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 15:15:46 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, this is already possible with RSS 1.0.
>
> Really? How is it done?
My apologies, the RSS 1.0 spec actually says the rss:channel resource is
"...either the URL of the homepage being described or a URL where the
R
On 15 Jan 2005, at 8:28 pm, David Powell wrote:
11.1 Verifying the Authenticity of Self Links
Can someone explain the attack model here? The worst that I can see
happening is that when you try to subscribe to my feed, you end up
subscribed to someone else's. How does this harm anyone but me?
Gr
Bob Wyman:
[[[
I am particularly interested in Atom-related comments at this point. For
instance, youll notice Delete messages in the feed. Weve talked about
Delete or Retract capability often in the past and Ive usually argued
against it. However, it turns out to be necessary with thi
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 23:12:57 +0200, Ziv Caspi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Bob Wyman:
>
> [[[
> I am particularly interested in "Atom-related" comments at this point. For
> instance, you'll notice "Delete" messages in the feed. We've talked about
> "Delete" or "Retract" capability often in the
um... cancel messages?
look, errors or state change repudiation is latent in all reported state.
why "un-write" when you can "later-write"?
18 matches
Mail list logo
