On 12/5/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark Baker wrote:
It's just an entry without a feed. You'd use the same code
path to process that entry whether it were found in an entry
or feed document, right?
Not necessarily... The majority of applications that most
frequently handle Ato
I'm fine with the type parameter approach so long as it is effective.
By effective I mean: Will existing implementations actually take the
time to update their behavior to properly handle the optional type
parameter.
- James
Bob Wyman wrote:
>[snip]
> James suggests: "the type parameter is
On 11/30/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The key problem with "application/atom+xml;type=entry" is that at least
> one major browser (Firefox 2.0) still treats it as a feed and shows the
> "subscribe" link. So while the type parameter is a potentially more
> elegant solution, the
Bob Wyman wrote:
>[snip]
> What you seem to be implying is that the majority of applications
> that process Atom Feed documents are not, in fact, supporting extremely
> important parts of the atom specification. I believe that any properly
>[snip]
Not quite. What I'm implying is that not a
On Dec 8, 2006, at 6:49 PM, James M Snell wrote:
Not quite. What I'm implying is that not all applications have the
need
to implement the entire specification.
At this point it would be a really good idea to be clear about the
original
intention of the specification and then propably al
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:42:40 +0100, Jan Algermissen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But that is an issue of linking semantics, not link target media types.
Wrong. The link relation 'alternate' is perfectly valid for both Entry and
Feed documents, depending on what type of resource they are li
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:15:48 +0100, Henry Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Just to say that I strongly agree with Jan's points below. We should
work to use the link relation type properly, and not get dazzled by the
current misuse of the alternate relation.
This problem isn't only with
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:37:22 +0100, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Content types are only useful when they help to differentiate how a
document is to processed. If it was all about the format we could have
just used application/xml all along. IMHO, There is already sufficient
evi
On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 18:52:05 +0100, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I'm fine with the type parameter approach so long as it is effective.
By effective I mean: Will existing implementations actually take the
time to update their behavior to properly handle the optional type
parameter
On 12/8/06, Asbjørn Ulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:42:40 +0100, Jan Algermissen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But that is an issue of linking semantics, not link target media types.
Wrong. The link relation 'alternate' is perfectly valid for both Entry and
Feed docum
I can see a reason to distinguish more strongly between a feed and an
entry. And this is with regards to creating new collections.
The best way I see to create a new collection would be to POST a
containing no entries to a collection end point.
Though that is very similar to POSTing an
11 matches
Mail list logo
