On 13/7/05 5:17 PM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I should clarify that I defer this to the particular relationship
> type. In an atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED]'alternate'], I do absolutely expect
> the @href to be dereferencable. What I don¹t see any reason for
> is to mandate that @href m
On 13/7/05 4:25 PM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> True, but this doesn¹t detract from my argument that we need to
> be able to signify a tighter relationship than just ³related.² An
> aggregator might want to offer different UI for comment feeds, in
> contrast to merely ³related² fe
On Wednesday, July 13, 2005, at 12:25 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Another might be that the aggregator asks the user on
subscription whether he/she also wants to poll the comment feed,
There's an implementation detail that should be pointed out, in case it
might influence the language ultimately
On Tuesday, July 12, 2005, at 07:23 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I think what we want to say is that “aggregators consuming this
feed should consider automatically subscribing to the referenced
feed as well,”
Automating feed subscriptions isn't something that should be done too
lightly[1]. The
On Jul 12, 2005, at 19:16, Norman Walsh wrote:
I use Kohsuke's MSV. (msv.dev.java.net)
Cool. Thanks.
I had allowed relaxng.org tell me that MSV "Supports XML syntax only."
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://hsivonen.iki.fi/
* David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-13 08:45]:
> Because the content of atom:link is undefined, there is a risk
> that some implementations, particularly Atom server
> implementations accepting entries from a publishing client,
> might just drop the contents of the element.
We had a discu
* A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-13 08:11]:
> Obviously, my own vote is that it’s fine as is: I see no reason
> that dictates that atom:link must point to a concrete Web
> resource, rather than just an abstract one – neither
> conceptually/semantically nor in terms of consequences for
>
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-13 06:40]:
> >Maybe “companion?” I don’t know if I like that term, but it’s
> >the best single-word description I can think of off the top of
> >my head.
>>
> I think we could just as easily attach the "you really should
> auto-subscribe" semantic to @r
