Thanks, that actually makes a lot of sense. It's also helpful in
resolving ambiguities regarding CC "NoDeriv" licences applied at the
feed level, I think.
James M Snell wrote on 4/11/2006, 3:17 PM:
>
> This was specifically added in response to feedback provided on this
> list. Although I
Works for me. I couldn't think of a better way to describe the concern
than what Mark included in his draft so I simply copied it verbatim.
Mark N: I hope you don't mind. :-)
- James
James Holderness wrote:
>
> James M Snell wrote:
>>> Not a proofreading issue, but shouldn't section 5 say som
James M Snell wrote:
Not a proofreading issue, but shouldn't section 5 say something about
DOS attacks using replies links to third party servers? I wouldn't be
surprised if some clients automatically subscribed to all replies links
in a feed even if they were 100MB zip files on a completely dif
James Holderness wrote:
>[snip]
> Section 4, paragraph 1:
> "into a separate feed document" (singular document)
> "its value is assumed" (no apostrophe)
>
> Section 4, last paragraph:
> "neither does it explicitly allow" (is -> it)
>
> Section 6:
> "Security considerations: (see section 5)" (6
This was specifically added in response to feedback provided on this
list. Although I don't have the link to the original thread, the
rationale has to do with aggregated feeds. Specifically, I may publish
an entry that does not have a license that you turn around and republish
in an aggregate fe
I'd like to support this in our products, and I'm curious as to why the
feed licence isn't inherited (by default) by the entries within a feed.
Seems like this would require a lot of duplicate licence information
in the most common case, where the feed and its entries have exactly the
same l
James M Snell wrote:
The Feed Thread draft has been updated.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-07.txt
I am an absolutely terrible proofreader so I'd really appreciate it if
someone could do a quick scan over the current doc to find the typos
that I know must b
The Feed Thread draft has been updated.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-07.txt
Among various editorial changes, the in-reply-to id attribute is now
called "ref".
I also added a new warning for implementors: "Implementors should note
that while the Atom Syndic
