Re: Top 10 and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

2005-08-31 Thread Dan Brickley
Peter Saint-Andre wrote: Walter Underwood wrote: --On August 30, 2005 1:49:57 AM -0400 Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I’m sorry, but I can’t go on without complaining. Microsoft has proposed extensions which turn RSS V2.0 feeds into lists and we’ve got folk who are proposing

Re: Top 10 and other lists should be entries, not feeds.

2005-08-31 Thread Danny Ayers
On 8/31/05, Danny Ayers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Correction: I doubt there's much difference in terms of effort needed to support either the per-entry or in-entry approaches. Capabilities of the client might make a lot of difference though = I doubt there's much difference in terms of

The benefits of Lists are Entries rather than Lists are Feeds

2005-08-31 Thread Bob Wyman
Folks, I hate to be insistent, however, I think that in the mail below I offered some pretty compelling reasons why lists should be entries rather than turning feeds into lists. Could someone please comment on this? Is there some point that I'm completely missing? What is wrong with my suggestion

Re: The benefits of Lists are Entries rather than Lists are Feeds

2005-08-31 Thread Mark Nottingham
What would you like the working group to do? On 31/08/2005, at 8:36 AM, Bob Wyman wrote: Folks, I hate to be insistent, however, I think that in the mail below I offered some pretty compelling reasons why lists should be entries rather than turning feeds into lists. Could someone please

Re: The benefits of Lists are Entries rather than Lists are Feeds

2005-08-31 Thread James M Snell
It may very well be more useful, but we shouldn't mandate it in any way. Let people build whatever kind of applications they want with Atom. Bob Wyman wrote: Folks, I hate to be insistent, however, I think that in the mail below I offered some pretty compelling reasons why lists should be

Re: The benefits of Lists are Entries rather than Lists are Feeds

2005-08-31 Thread Roger B.
What is wrong with my suggestion that lists-are-entries is much more useful than the alternative? Bob: Well, off the top of my head... (1) If the lists are embedded as (X)HTML, then only aggregators that display markup will be able to do anything with them, and headline-only aggregators will

Re: The benefits of Lists are Entries rather than Lists are Feeds

2005-08-31 Thread Graham
On 31 Aug 2005, at 6:22 pm, Roger B. wrote: (1) If the lists are embedded as (X)HTML, then only aggregators that display markup will be able to do anything with them, and headline-only aggregators will be useless. And damn those unthinking bloggers who embed their paragraphs as (X) HTML,

Re: The benefits of Lists are Entries rather than Lists are Feeds

2005-08-31 Thread A. Pagaltzis
* Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-31 20:40]: On 31 Aug 2005, at 6:22 pm, Roger B. wrote: (1) If the lists are embedded as (X)HTML, then only aggregators that display markup will be able to do anything with them, and headline-only aggregators will be useless. And damn those unthinking

Re: The benefits of Lists are Entries rather than Lists are Feeds

2005-08-31 Thread Robert Koberg
Hi, A. Pagaltzis wrote: * Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-31 20:40]: Another feature is the list can be formatted properly XHTML, considerably improving legibly over a bunch of floating entries. Straw man. The onus for the legibility of an XHTML-formatted list lies with the publisher;