On 31/7/05 7:47 AM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I¹m -1 on using ³replies-source²; I should have said so more
> explicitly before. To me it is non-sensical, as it parses as ³the
> source of replies,² which is the opposite relationship of what
> it¹s supposed to express. It¹s not wh
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> * Justin Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 23:25]:
> > I'm quite happy with 'replies-source' because it does not
> > indComparing to mail seems to be a reasonable thing to do -
> > mail has a considerable amount of prior implementation and
> > u
On 31/7/05 8:16 AM, "Antone Roundy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> ...unless it were done this way:
>
>
>
>
Why not this...
While true that nesting elements does allow for more flexible cardinality,
in practice will that actually hap
On 31/7/05 7:47 AM, "A. Pagaltzis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I¹m -1 on using ³replies-source²; I should have said so more
> explicitly before. To me it is non-sensical, as it parses as ³the
> source of replies,² which is the opposite relationship of what
> it¹s supposed to express. It¹s not wh
Sunday, July 31, 2005, 1:09:44 AM, I wrote:
> I don't believe that atom:link _isn't_ usefully extensible other than by
er, that should be "is"
--
Dave
Saturday, July 30, 2005, 9:55:33 PM, Antone Roundy wrote:
>
>
>
I'm not at all keen on extending the link element in this way. Atom
Publishing Servers that don't know about this extension that receive
an entry containing nested links from a publishing client will most
likely drop the
On Saturday, July 30, 2005, at 04:37 PM, James M Snell wrote:
One challenge is that for anything besides references to Atom entries,
there is no guarantee that in-reply-to links will be non-traversable.
For instance, if someone were to go and define a behavior for using
in-reply-to with RSS,
One challenge is that for anything besides references to Atom entries,
there is no guarantee that in-reply-to links will be non-traversable.
For instance, if someone were to go and define a behavior for using
in-reply-to with RSS, the href of the link may point to the same URL
that the RSS i
I agree. I'd much rather avoid introducing a new namespace for this
tho. Nested link elements if just fine I think
Using source in this context I think avoids the potential confusion had
the link appeared without nesting.
The fact that it solves the problem of associating a single in
On Saturday, July 30, 2005, at 03:59 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I’d prefer to eliminate the one contra you listed by using an
extension element for this purpose (as always, nested into the
link.) Of course, that means need a namespace…
Given that the link to the feed is traversable, and the "lin
I'm using the one from the Feed Validator.
http://www.snellspace.com/public/valid-atom.png
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 18:40]:
what are y'all using for Atom buttons?
I’m not using one, but I thought there was one with the atom from
the Atom lo
* Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 23:05]:
> Pro:
> * Groups the two links together
> * Gives us more options for what to call the inside one without
> creating confusion: "source-feed", for example. It would be
> nice to choose a name that's not likely to be the perfect name
> for s
* Justin Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 23:25]:
> I'm quite happy with 'replies-source' because it does not
> indComparing to mail seems to be a reasonable thing to do -
> mail has a considerable amount of prior implementation and
> understanding from which concepts can be drawn. However
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 18:10]:
> > Yeah, source is likely the most logical choice, but I didn't
> > want to confuse folks with a link @rel="source" that has a
> > different meaning from atom:source.
>
> An argument by way of whic
On Saturday, July 30, 2005, at 02:38 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 18:10]:
Yeah, source is likely the most logical choice, but I didn't
want to confuse folks with a link @rel="source" that has a
different meaning from atom:source.
An argument by way
* Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 18:40]:
> what are y'all using for Atom buttons?
I’m not using one, but I thought there was one with the atom from
the Atom logo? I can’t find any such thing now, though; well,
except the one at the feedvalidator, but that’s too large for my
taste.
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 18:10]:
> Yeah, source is likely the most logical choice, but I didn't
> want to confuse folks with a link @rel="source" that has a
> different meaning from atom:source.
An argument by way of which I came around to Antone’s suggested
“start-of-threa
James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> FYI: http://www.snellspace.com/wp/?p=193
>
> Abstract: Proposes two new elements that allow entries to be ordered
> within a feed.
[xml condensed:]
> http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom";
> xmlns:o="http://www.snellspace.com/atom/extensions/proposed
Hi,
what are y'all using for Atom buttons?
cheers
Bill
Yeah, source is likely the most logical choice, but I didn't want to
confuse folks with a link @rel="source" that has a different meaning
from atom:source.
Graham wrote:
On 30 Jul 2005, at 1:38 am, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 01:40]:
It's really
On 30 Jul 2005, at 1:38 am, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 01:40]:
It's really just a hint as to where original entries MIGHT be
found.
“originally-at?”
source?
Graham
21 matches
Mail list logo
