A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Justin Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-14 23:00]:
If any additional wording is necessary, then it should be
explicit that it only relates to the media type of
'application/atom+xml'. It is, in my opinion, redundant to say
this because ID reference for a applicati
* Justin Fletcher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-14 23:00]:
> If any additional wording is necessary, then it should be
> explicit that it only relates to the media type of
> 'application/atom+xml'. It is, in my opinion, redundant to say
> this because ID reference for a application/atom+xml documen
> I believe that's because they're not necessarily expected to be derived
> from Atom Entry IDs.
Agreed. I've been making experimental use of the extension with RSS,
and will continue to do so... no Atom IDs in sight.
--
Roger Benningfield
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
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 derived from Atom
Entry IDs. No particular inter
I do believe that the Atom Comments Extension [1] is pretty much
complete. I'd like to push forward towards getting this into Last-Call
and on it's way to completion very shortly. If anyone has any further
comments on the draft, please let me know.
- James
[1]
http://ww
