Friday, May 19, 2006, 1:40:43 AM, Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I've been trying to understand if there's a technical problem with
> the draft's chosen placement of the attributes and the best case
> I've seen is that "that location is technically disallowed by
> RFC4287" , an assertion which is dispu
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-20 06:40]:
>> A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>>> I’d still like thr:when called thr:updated, as it follows the
>>> same semantics as atom:updated and its value is of the same
>>> type.
>> I'm still stewing over this and haven't quite made u
