Eric Scheid wrote:
On 27/5/05 4:14 AM, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
protocol-04
btw, where can we find it?
Replace format-08 with protocol-04 and you get it ;o)
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-04.txt
There's also a link to the last version from
I have a server(freebsd+apache+php), i want it to support nokis's
lifeblog. what do i need to do to receive the atom send by lifeblog
and reply to it's document. also, can php solve X-WSSE header?
Hi Starry, I can help you with this. Drop me a line at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks.
On 5/27/05, starry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a server(freebsd+apache+php), i want it to support nokis's
lifeblog. what do i need to do to receive the atom send by lifeblog
and reply to it's document.
In general, the idea of associating the signing keys with the network
resource (feed or entry document URI) makes a lot of sense but I think
there may be some issues there with aggregate feeds and intermediaries
(e.g. Feedburner) that would need to be worked out. In any case, this is
On May 27, 2005, at 11:23 AM, James M Snell wrote:
In general, the idea of associating the signing keys with the
network resource (feed or entry document URI) makes a lot of sense
but I think there may be some issues there with aggregate feeds and
intermediaries (e.g. Feedburner) that
On 27/5/05 4:49 PM, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Replace format-08 with protocol-04 and you get it ;o)
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-04.txt
except I've been getting format-nn from http://atompub.org/... ;-)
ok, for those in the know, could you please
Friday, May 27, 2005, 7:18:40 PM, Eric Scheid wrote:
On 27/5/05 4:49 PM, Thomas Broyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Replace format-08 with protocol-04 and you get it ;o)
http://ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-04.txt
except I've been getting format-nn from
At 12:57 PM -0600 5/27/05, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:
Do you intend to require Keyinfo in the Signature element? Any
requirements on that?
In the base format spec, we are simply relying on XMLDigSig. If that
turns out to be insufficient, we'll certainly add advice about what
Tim Bray wrote:
On May 27, 2005, at 11:23 AM, James M Snell wrote:
In general, the idea of associating the signing keys with the
network resource (feed or entry document URI) makes a lot of sense
but I think there may be some issues there with aggregate feeds and
intermediaries (e.g.
On Fri, 27 May 2005 at 13:02:17 -0700 Paul Hoffman spoke thusly:
At 12:57 PM -0600 5/27/05, The Purple Streak, Hilarie Orman wrote:
Do you intend to require Keyinfo in the Signature element? Any
requirements on that?
In the base format spec, we are simply relying on XMLDigSig. If that
Aristotle, Henri Sivonen,
Entities can be flattened.
Again, as with comments, I agree in principle, but in practice
some processors depend on them.
I do not consider it at all wise to legislate anything in the
Atom spec to address these cases.
That's probably a good idea.
Henri Sivonen,
Yes, but MSIE^H^H^H^Hsome xml processors (cough cough) still
inappropriately
use comments for that purpose.
I am not familiar with that. What purpose exactly? Why should Atom
support it?
MSIE conditional comments. See other person's reply.
Then there are example
12 matches
Mail list logo
