Re: Revisiting feed discovery

2005-01-20 Thread Eric Scheid
On 21/1/05 1:07 PM, "Asbjørn Ulsberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> a) Change rel="alternate" to rel="feed", rel="subscription" or similar. > > What I have a problem with is «what is the feed for if it isn't an > alternative to the resource you're looking at?». How is a resource which shows the

Pro-forma request about whether we should meet at the next IETF

2005-01-20 Thread Paul Hoffman / IMC
Hi again. The next IETF meeting is in Minneapolis, March 6-11; see for details. This WG has not met at an IETF before, and it seems to be doing fine without a face-to-face meeting, but as co-chair, I should ask: do people think we should meet? If so,

Re: RSS to Atom migration

2005-01-20 Thread Arve Bersvendsen
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 01:55:38 +, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I don't know about anyone else but my hope for Atom is that soon after its release the whole RSS mess is left to sink into the sea. With this in mind, should we define a tag that can be put into RSS feeds so that client software

Re: Revisiting feed discovery

2005-01-20 Thread Asbjørn Ulsberg
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 14:40:17 +0100, Arve Bersvendsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: a) rel="alternate" is a misnomer. Not all feeds are alternate content. They may have some other relationship, such as rel="related". I agree. b) Specifying a mime type for a feed is not always appropriate. If we

RSS to Atom migration

2005-01-20 Thread Graham
I don't know about anyone else but my hope for Atom is that soon after its release the whole RSS mess is left to sink into the sea. With this in mind, should we define a tag that can be put into RSS feeds so that client software can automatically switch over to the Atom version? I'd suggest reu

Re: PaceMustUnderstandElement

2005-01-20 Thread Asbjørn Ulsberg
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:36:43 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The objections to this fall into two forms: 1. We don't have prior art in the syndication space that proves this is needed. 2. This is someone else's problem, e.g. SOAP ...Or this isn't such a big problem at all. Let's not go

Work Queue Rotation #15

2005-01-20 Thread Paul Hoffman / IMC
The following are dropped for lack of support: - PaceAltExtensibilityAndVersioning: one -1, no support from anyone. - PaceExtensibilityAndVersioning: one -0 and one -1. - PaccExtensibilityAndVersioningNoScenarios: one -0, no support from anyone. - PaceExtensionNamespace: two -1, no support from any

Re: PaceExtensibilityAndVersioning

2005-01-20 Thread Asbjørn Ulsberg
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:09:56 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I could live with this, but I think PaceMustUnderstandElement buys 80% of the benefit with 20% of the cost/apparatus. -Tim -1. I suspect everyone else giving PaceMustUnderstand -1s will feel the same. Yup. I've give