On Sep 11, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
If I am not completely wrong, versioning is definitely an issue if
you want to employ Atom in beyond-blogging contexts. Most people
that deal with collections of items are definitely interested in
keeping track of the former versions of t
Le 12 sept. 06 à 08:39, Jan Algermissen a écrit :
Umm...am I missing something? Is it that bad?
What I am basically aiming at is a common means to relate entries
to each other to indicate one is a version of the other or to link
from an entry to a feed that consists of versions of that en
On 12.09.2006, at 01:23, Tim Bray wrote:
On Sep 11, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
is anybody working on (or planning to work on) a versioning
extension for Atom? I am about to use Atom in two (considerably
different) projects that require versioning and would be happy to
join
On Sep 11, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Jan Algermissen wrote:
is anybody working on (or planning to work on) a versioning
extension for Atom? I am about to use Atom in two (considerably
different) projects that require versioning and would be happy to
join forces and contribute real (enterprise-)wor
Hi,
is anybody working on (or planning to work on) a versioning extension
for Atom? I am about to use Atom in two (considerably different)
projects that require versioning and would be happy to join forces
and contribute real (enterprise-)world use cases. (Note: not
'enterprisey' use cas
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:36:02AM -0700, Tim Bray wrote:
> let's assume myns: is declared. Then why not
>
> icon-uri
Apologies to all - this is what we tried first, but there must have
been a typo or something, because the feed validator started shouting
at us. I've just checked again, and al
On Sep 11, 2006, at 7:45 AM, James Aylett wrote:
Feed Validator gets upset with extension attributes - is it wrong?
Be specific, please? -Tim
On Sep 11, 2006, at 4:27 AM, James Aylett wrote:
We've run across a situation where we want to annotate an atom:icon
with a title. Currently we're doing the following, as something that
Feed Validator is happy with, but doesn't feel right:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:09:27AM -0700, James M Snell wrote:
> atom:icon is defined as:
>
>atomIcon = element atom:icon {
> atomCommonAttributes,
> (atomUri)
>}
>
> atomCommonAttributes is defined as:
>
>atomCommonAttributes =
> attribute xml:base { atomUri }?,
atom:icon is defined as:
atomIcon = element atom:icon {
atomCommonAttributes,
(atomUri)
}
atomCommonAttributes is defined as:
atomCommonAttributes =
attribute xml:base { atomUri }?,
attribute xml:lang { atomLanguageTag }?,
undefinedAttribute*
The Validato
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:27:27AM -0700, James M Snell wrote:
> Using extension attributes is a perfectly legitimate solution. The one
> drawback is that not all implementations will support 'em.
That's not a problem, to be honest - we have (amongst other things) a
Flash 'player' for the atom
Using extension attributes is a perfectly legitimate solution. The one
drawback is that not all implementations will support 'em.
- James
James Aylett wrote:
> We've run across a situation where we want to annotate an atom:icon
> with a title. Currently we're doing the following, as something t
I talked with Lisa a bit about this next week. I'll be working on
iterating the draft based on this conversation and will request another
last call once it's ready to go.
- James
Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2006-09-08 08:21:59 -0700, James M Snell wrote:
>
>> I think the discussion around this
We've run across a situation where we want to annotate an atom:icon
with a title. Currently we're doing the following, as something that
Feed Validator is happy with, but doesn't feel right:
--
uri:to/icon
My icon
title
-
On 2006-09-08 08:21:59 -0700, James M Snell wrote:
> I think the discussion around this has been absolutely excellent.
> Lots of very good information and perspectives. At this point I
> need to stew over things for a few days and think about how to
> proceed with the extension.
The last call f
15 matches
Mail list logo