Bill de hÓra wrote:
...
ultraliberal/+halfassedwebdav
...
I guess I need you to explain that joke.
Julian (confused)
--
bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Robert Sayre wrote:
I suggest we register a new top-level:
ultraliberal/..
Huge +1 to this:
ultraliberal/+pimpmyfeed
ultraliberal/+worksforme
ultraliberal/+diveintoaggregatorshite
ultraliberal/+halfassedwebdav
Perhaps we could get this through the IETF mincer by April 1st?
(...so... why are
Tim Bray wrote:
On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:00 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I was going for a single media type for all of RSS, with (IIRC) an
optional "version" parameter.
Well, if someone wanted to strive for descriptiveness, they should
register, for 0.9, 1.0, and 2.0
I suggest we register a new
On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:00 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I was going for a single media type for all of RSS, with (IIRC) an
optional "version" parameter.
Well, if someone wanted to strive for descriptiveness, they should
register, for 0.9, 1.0, and 2.0
application/the-rss-that-grew-in-a-neglected
[[ Co-chair hat on ]]
At 12:34 AM -0500 3/30/05, Randy Charles Morin wrote:
Do-over. Can this be done thru the Atom WG and how?
It's not in our charter, and it is not useful to our chartered work.
The current registration in our WG document serves our purposes. You
can certainly pursue this as an
On Tuesday, March 29, 2005, at 11:00 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
Of course, given that RSS has separate change controllers, it might be
argued that it would be better to have different ones, but I'm not yet
convinced; generally, you've got one app that can handle all of the
formats; there's no m
I would just like to revisit this question, because it will help clarify
the "alternate" relation.
On 1 Mar 2005, at 11:39, Henry Story wrote:
On 20 Feb 2005, at 13:25, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Graham, Eric,
My thinking goes like this,
- Is there a difference between an entry and the chunk of XML you
It might help if the people interested in this question would read the RFC
that describes the registration process:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2048.txt
2048 will soon be obsoleted by two other documents:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-mime-p4-06.txt
(which is in the RFC Editor
On 30 Mar 2005, at 08:44, Jeremy Wong wrote:
I am not going to reply your message in details. Just a note of my
feeling that your first representation is simple, while the structured
representations are complex. A simple representation favours
searching, while a complex representation retards a
