Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

I think we should move the format to Draft Standard by clearing up any errata and adding two attributes: 'dir' and 'unicode-bidi', as defined in XHTML. Thoughts? Robert Sayre

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

* Robert Sayre wrote: >I think we should move the format to Draft Standard by clearing up any >errata and adding two attributes: 'dir' and 'unicode-bidi', as defined >in XHTML. > >Thoughts? I "think" that XHTML does not define an 'unicode-bidi' attribute. Do you mean, for 'unicode-bidi', "as de

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

Robert Sayre wrote: > > I think we should move the format to Draft Standard by clearing up any > errata and adding two attributes: 'dir' and 'unicode-bidi', as defined > in XHTML. Are you suggesting adding these to the common attributes or to Text constructs and atom:content specifically? - J

Re: Atom Export

* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-09-29 14:17]: > I've been stewing lately over the possibility of doing > something similar to this but wrapping the atom documents and > associated resources into a zip. A single master atom feed > would provide an index of the archive, with individual ent

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

On 2/10/06 5:01 PM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we should move the format to Draft Standard by clearing up any > errata and adding two attributes: 'dir' and 'unicode-bidi', as defined > in XHTML. add @attr where? e.

Re: Atom Export

James M Snell wrote: Using XOP is definitely an option, but it's one that is likely to be far less efficient and likely quite a bit more complicated than a zip. Using the zip gives you quite a few options for exporting multiple collections, with associated resources, templates, configuration set

Re: Atom Export

A. Pagaltzis wrote: Why the zip? Atom is an envelope format that can transport binary content. No, it isn't. An atom envelope can point to non-XML data binary data, but it cannot reasonably embed it. You could use an atomLink element to point to the binary data; then embed the whole file

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

Robert Sayre wrote: I think we should move the format to Draft Standard by clearing up any errata and adding two attributes: 'dir' and 'unicode-bidi', as defined in XHTML. Which elements would these be attached to? Also, I'm not familiar with the unicode-bidi attribute. Do you have a re

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

At 3:01 AM -0400 10/2/06, Robert Sayre wrote: I think we should move the format to Draft Standard by clearing up any errata and adding two attributes: 'dir' and 'unicode-bidi', as defined in XHTML. We can't both add features and move to Draft Standard at the same time. If we add features, we

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: I "think" that XHTML does not define an 'unicode-bidi' attribute. Do you mean, for 'unicode-bidi', "as defined in CSS 2.1"? Sure. Elliotte Harold wrote: Which elements would these be attached to? All of them. Paul Hoffman wrote: At 3:01 AM -0400 10/2/06, Ro

Re: Atom Export

+1 Elliotte Harold wrote: > > A. Pagaltzis wrote: > >> Why the zip? Atom is an envelope format that can transport binary >> content. > > > No, it isn't. An atom envelope can point to non-XML data binary data, > but it cannot reasonably embed it. You could use an atomLink element to > point t

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

At 11:17 AM -0400 10/2/06, Robert Sayre wrote: Paul Hoffman wrote: At 3:01 AM -0400 10/2/06, Robert Sayre wrote: I think we should move the format to Draft Standard by clearing up any errata and adding two attributes: 'dir' and 'unicode-bidi', as defined in XHTML. We can't both add features

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Probably RFC 2026, but if not there, it is certainly in the folklore > of How Things Are Done. That's unfortunate. A documented process is a requirement for open standards development, in the opinion of many

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

Paul Hoffman schrieb: Dang, where'd that rule come from? Probably RFC 2026, but if not there, it is certainly in the folklore of How Things Are Done. ... I thought this is possible if interop is demonstrated... > ... Best regards, Julian

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

Paul Hoffman schrieb: At 3:01 AM -0400 10/2/06, Robert Sayre wrote: I think we should move the format to Draft Standard by clearing up any errata and adding two attributes: 'dir' and 'unicode-bidi', as defined in XHTML. We can't both add features and move to Draft Standard at the same time.

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

I would definitely agree that having a dir attribute would be a good thing. (would be even better if it were defined as xml:dir but... whatever). I'm not so sure about unicode-bidi. - James Robert Sayre wrote: > [snip] > The i18n attributes seem needed to display text without a guess based on >

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

At 6:23 PM + 10/2/06, Robert Sayre wrote: That's unfortunate. A documented process is a requirement for open standards development, in the opinion of many If it is a true requirement, then I guess the IETF is an abysmal failure. Oh, well. OTOH, some folks in the IETF are trying to meet

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

Paul Hoffman wrote: At 6:23 PM + 10/2/06, Robert Sayre wrote: That's unfortunate. A documented process is a requirement for open standards development, in the opinion of many If it is a true requirement, then I guess the IETF is an abysmal failure. Oh, well. Well, openness is only o

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

The Draft Standard requirement for demonstrated interoperability for all features is documented in RFC2026.  It's that requirement which leads to the popular conclusion that in many cases, adding a new feature is incompatible with moving to Draft Standard at the same time -- that popular conclusion

Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?)

I think the suggestion of adding a dir attribute is a very good idea. The great thing is that it can be done without any significant backwards compatibility concerns. The definition of the attribute is simple enough: atomCommonAttributes = attribute xml:base { atomUri }?, attribute

Re: Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?)

Tuesday, October 3, 2006, 12:20:01 AM, James Snell wrote: > I think the suggestion of adding a dir attribute is a very good idea. > The great thing is that it can be done without any significant backwards > compatibility concerns. The definition of the attribute is simple enough: > atomCommo

Re: Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?)

Le 3 oct. 06 à 08:20, James M Snell a écrit : I think the suggestion of adding a dir attribute is a very good idea. The great thing is that it can be done without any significant backwards compatibility concerns. The definition of the attribute is simple enough: atomCommonAttributes =

Re: Atom and bidi (was: Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?)

Tuesday, October 3, 2006, 1:55:31 AM, I wrote: > As we depend on Unicode, then we can't really stop people from using > Unicode bidi. We can't stop people from using HTML/XHTML bidi. Or even > CSS bidi controls. I think we should think carefully before we > introduce yet another method for bidi

Re: Atom and bidi

The challenge is not so much with (X)HTML as it is with the plain text variants of content and Text constructs and with Language-Sensitive attributes. Currently, the bidi control characters are the only way to establish the directionality in a content/@type="text" element. Of course, that works,

Re: Atom Syndication Format To Draft Standard?

At 04:10 06/10/03, Julian Reschke wrote: >Independantly of that, what do we do with all the normative references to >proposed standards...: >RFC3987: [PROPOSED STANDARD] -- intended standards level of DRAFT incompatible >with this document's standard level! I've definitely thought about movin