Re: FYI: Updated Index draft

Eric Scheid wrote: On 21/9/05 5:18 AM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: For instance ... 10 ... 5 What happens when entries "fall off the bottom" ... do their rankings expire? How does that work with the diff+Feed method of partial feed retrieval? e.

Re: FYI: Updated Index draft

On 21/9/05 5:18 AM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For instance > > > ... > 10 > > > ... > 5 > > What happens when entries "fall off the bottom" ... do their rankings expire? How does that work with the diff+Feed method of partial feed retrieval? e.

Re: FYI: Updated Index draft

James M Snell wrote: Complete example ... priority index order="descending">http://www.example.com/ranking/foo ... C 10 3 http://www.example.com/ranking/foo";>30 […] Thoughts? It looks more and more like Microsoft's RSS simple list extension [1], and I think they had the good approach (d

Re: FYI: Updated Index draft

Eric Scheid wrote: On 15/9/05 6:06 AM, "David Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Eg - An Atom library or server that doesn't know about this extension is free to not preserve the entry order, and yet to retain the element, even though this will have corrupted the data. very good po

Re: Structured Publishing -- Joe Reger shows the way...

Bob Wyman wrote: I believe it doesn't make sense for us to add data-carrying elements to Atom other than atom:content or atom:summary. Atom provides a definition of a collection of entries and it provides the entry format. Frankly, it should stop there. The data payload should be carrie

Re: [feedvalidator] Two entries with the same value for atom:updated

James Holderness wrote: If you read the help on that error message you'll see it's quoting directly from section 3.3 of the Atom spec: "Date values SHOULD be as accurate as possible. For example, it would be generally inappropriate for a publishing system to apply the same timestamp to sev

Re: [feedvalidator] Two entries with the same value for atom:updated

If you read the help on that error message you'll see it's quoting directly from section 3.3 of the Atom spec: "Date values SHOULD be as accurate as possible. For example, it would be generally inappropriate for a publishing system to apply the same timestamp to several entries which were pu

[feedvalidator] Two entries with the same value for atom:updated

In , why is the validator complaining about atom:updated elements to be the same...? After all, both entries have different atom:id elements... Confused, Julian