On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 22:48 +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * Uche Ogbuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-01 17:55]:
> > Your suggested change would not be incorrect, but it would add
> > no value and be confusing (at least until atom ever decided to
> > have "global" attributes, for some reason).
>
>
Thanks Uche for making me think a little more carefully about this
topic. Your intervention has been very helpful in identifying a
concern that is probably more widespread than openly acknowledged.
On 1 Dec 2005, at 21:20, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
Hmm. I worry about such a land grab. I'd rath
* Uche Ogbuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-01 17:55]:
> Your suggested change would not be incorrect, but it would add
> no value and be confusing (at least until atom ever decided to
> have "global" attributes, for some reason).
Confusing, how? Attributes in the Atom namespace are already
forbid
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 18:35 +0100, Henry Story wrote:
> On 1 Dec 2005, at 17:50, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:25 +0100, Henry Story wrote:
> >> On 29 Nov 2005, at 00:31, Luke Arno wrote:
> >>> On 11/28/05, Ernest Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Henry,
> >>>
On 1 Dec 2005, at 17:50, Uche Ogbuji wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:25 +0100, Henry Story wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005, at 00:31, Luke Arno wrote:
On 11/28/05, Ernest Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Henry,
On Nov 23, 2005, at 3:22 AM, Henry Story wrote:
A few improvements of atom over di
I'm not sure if this is something new to version 1.5 or I just didn't notice
before, but when a web page has multiple rel="alternate" links of different
feed types, Firefox's autodiscovery feature only shows one of them. What's
most interesting, though, is that if there's an Atom feed as well
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:25 +0100, Henry Story wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2005, at 00:31, Luke Arno wrote:
> > On 11/28/05, Ernest Prabhakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Henry,
> >>
> >> On Nov 23, 2005, at 3:22 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> >>> A few improvements of atom over directories is that ou
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 00:53 +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> over in #atom on irc.freenode.net, I was just explaining to John
> Clark that xml:id is not forbidden by the spec, even though it’s
> not explicitly allowed. As spec language was examined, we
> discovered the following oddi
On 12/1/05, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/1/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If it
> > turns out that that PaceFeedsNotCollections was not included in what Tim
> > was referring to by "introspection via feeds/links", then I'll move this
> > one back too.
>
> PaceFeedsN
On 12/1/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If it
> turns out that that PaceFeedsNotCollections was not included in what Tim
> was referring to by "introspection via feeds/links", then I'll move this
> one back too.
PaceFeedsNotCollections has nothing to do with introspection.
--
Robert S
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 11/30/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
I noticed you moved PaceFeedsNotCollections and PaceSimpleIntroduction
into the Closed section.
http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg03545.html
And, unless I misinterpreted, both Paul and
11 matches
Mail list logo
