On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, James Cerra wrote:
>
> Aristotle Pagaltzis,
>
> Thanks for the clarifications.
>
> > > Section 1.2:
> > >
> > > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom
> > >
> > > I guess consistancy is not a requirement of the Atom spec. By
> > > convention, this should be all lower
On Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 10:22 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* James Cerra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-21 05:00]:
Sjoerd Visscher,
That's because it is not an attempt at abbreviating strings,
but to preserve the meaning of relative URIs, when content is
used outside of its original context.
* James Cerra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-21 05:00]:
> Sjoerd Visscher,
> > That's because it is not an attempt at abbreviating strings,
> > but to preserve the meaning of relative URIs, when content is
> > used outside of its original context.
>
> Same thing. You are framing the question in a
On Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 11:44 AM, Thomas Broyer wrote:
I was actually wondering why non-stateful feeds couldn't have archives:
in the "This month's Top 10 records" feed, why couldn't I link to "Last
month's Top 10 records"?
If this kind of links are not dealt within feed-history, then I
James Cerra wrote:
You might be right but then it should be named atom:homepage. Calling it
atom:uri is misleading.
It's an arbitrary IRI "associated with the person"... it's most common
use will be a link to a homepage but that's not the only use for it. I
could use it, for instan
Graham,
> > I feel that HTML entities other than numeric references, >,
> > <,
> > &, ', and "e; should be depreciated in HTML
> > content.
>
> Disagree. All it needs is a simple look-up table in the HTML parser.
In an XSLT-based Atom-to-XHTML processor, that is a large cos
Aristotle Pagaltzis,
Thanks for the clarifications.
> > Section 1.2:
> >
> > > http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom
> >
> > I guess consistancy is not a requirement of the Atom spec. By
> > convention, this should be all lowercase. Existing software
> > for Atom 0.3 has to be recoded for
Sjoerd Visscher,
> > xml:base is a broken specification. At the simplest, it's just a lame
> > attempt at abbreviating strings. However, it solves that problem in the
> > worst possible manner. As the RDF serializations show, what is needed is
> > a name/value pair simular to entities or xml
I have just published a feed for my blog at http://bblfish.net/blog/
blog.atom
I use logo and icon tags. Am I using it correctly?
I wanted to add logos and icons to each of the entries too, as each
entry at
http://bblfish.net/blog/ has an associated image and logo. I guess I
will
have to
James Cerra wrote:
xml:base is a broken specification. At the simplest, it's just a lame attempt
at abbreviating strings. However, it solves that problem in the worst
possible manner. As the RDF serializations show, what is needed is a
name/value pair simular to entities or xml namespaces.
This mail has been around in my drafts folder for about 10 days, but
here it is...
I'm not sure what my position is wrt what I wrote below...
Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 04/07/2005, at 6:18 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote:
With the -01 draft (it might have been the same within the -00 one
too),
e,
> > Section 3.2.2:
> > --
> >> The "atom:uri" element's content conveys an IRI associated with the
> >> person. Person constructs MAY contain an atom:uri element, but MUST
> >> NOT contain more than one. The content of atom:uri in a Person
> >> construct MUST be an IRI referen
On 20 Jul 2005, at 6:08 am, James Cerra wrote:
I feel that HTML entities other than numeric references, >,
<,
&, ', and "e; should be depreciated in HTML
content.
Disagree. All it needs is a simple look-up table in the HTML parser.
Atom should explicitly endorse XHTML o
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
But the language in RFC3986 does not consider this use case, and
the language in the xml:base TR does not address same-document
references at all. So there are things possible in the scope of
the xml:base TR, for whose behaviour it defers to the RFC, which
only considers a sm
* James Cerra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-20 07:20]:
> I took some notes while reading the specification. Not all of
> them are good notes, and I was cranky while writing them.
Below some comments on your notes; any snipped notes can be
assumed to be ones where I agree with your assessment.
>
15 matches
Mail list logo
