On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Hi James,
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-09-08 06:45]:
If anyone has any further comments on the draft, please let me
know.
I am alarmed that this draft does *not even once* explicitly
mention the fact that idrefs are expected to be derive
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, James M Snell wrote:
Justin Fletcher wrote:
Some questions spring to mind...
What should implementors do when both feed history and ace namespaced
elements with equivilent meanings are present - which of the two should
resolve this conflict ?
Same thing that
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, James M Snell wrote:
Bill de hÓra wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
As I've been going through the effort of defining a number of Atom
extensions, I've consistently come back to the thought that it would be
interesting to explore the creation of a "Common Extensions Namespace"
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, James M Snell wrote:
Justin Fletcher wrote:
I'm a little confused by all this discussion of never-ending XML documents,
mainly because my understanding is that without the well-formedness checks
the content might as well be free form, and the elements withi
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Tim Bray wrote:
On Aug 22, 2005, at 7:26 AM, Joe Gregorio wrote:
Essentially, LiveJournal is making this data available to anybody who
wishes to access it, without any need to register or to invent a unique
API.
Ahh, I had thought this was a more dedicated ping traffic
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> * James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-09 07:25]:
> > The second feed illustrates the two forms of the in-reply-to
> > element. The dereferenceable form uses the href attribute to
> > locate the entity being responded to.
>
> I am still strongly
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>
> * Justin Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 23:25]:
> > I'm quite happy with 'replies-source' because it does not
> > indComparing to mail seems to be a reasonable thing to do -
> > mail has a co
On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-30 18:10]:
> > Yeah, source is likely the most logical choice, but I didn't
> > want to confuse folks with a link @rel="source" that has a
> > different meaning from atom:source.
>
> An argument by way of whic
On Tue, 24 May 2005, Eric Scheid wrote:
>
> On 24/5/05 4:14 AM, "Justin Fletcher" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As I understand it, the intention is that atom:author within atom:feed
> > applies to all child atom:entry elements; that is, the value is inherited
Hiya,
I'm trying to understand the intention of the draft, together with some of
the comments posted here recently. I've only been looking at Atom for a
couple of days so I may be misunderstanding.
As I understand it, the intention is that atom:author within atom:feed
applies to all child atom:e
10 matches
Mail list logo
