On 8/22/05, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As we have no processing model for this, my answer to Paul's question is
> that feed level extensions do not inherit/cascade/scope over entry level
> ones, irrespective of whether they're foreign or not, and that the best
> way to think about
James M Snell wrote:
> Second note to self: After thinking about this a bit more, I would
> also need a way of specifying a null license (e.g. the lack of a license).
> For instance, what if an entry that does not contain a license is
> aggregated into a feed that has a license. The original
> l
On Aug 21, 2005, at 1:42 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-21 21:55]:
Ah, I had missed that. This leads to a question for the mailing
list. Does an informative extension that appears at the feed
level (as compared to in entries) indicate:
d) completely unk
Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Hoffman asked:
> > Does an informative extension that appears at the feed level
> > (as compared to in entries) indicate:
> > a) this information pertains to each entry
> > b) this information pertains to the feed itself
> > c) this information pertains
On 22 Aug 2005, at 18:29, James M Snell wrote:
Bill de hÓra wrote:
As we have no processing model for this, my answer to Paul's
question is
that feed level extensions do not inherit/cascade/scope over entry
level
ones, irrespective of whether they're foreign or not, and that the
best
Bill de hÓra wrote:
As we have no processing model for this, my answer to Paul's question is
that feed level extensions do not inherit/cascade/scope over entry level
ones, irrespective of whether they're foreign or not, and that the best
way to think about atom:author is as a frozen accident.
James M Snell wrote:
>
> Bob Wyman wrote:
>
>> Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That issue is inheritance.
>>>
>>
>> Let me give an example of problematic inheritance...
>> Some have suggested that there be a "License" that you can associate
>> with Atom feeds and entries. Howev
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-22 05:30]:
> Second note to self: After thinking about this a bit more, I
> would also need a way of specifying a null license (e.g. the
> lack of a license). For instance, what if an entry that does
> not contain a license is aggregated into a feed tha
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Robin Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-22 05:05]:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
That issue is inheritance.
atom:author is the only precedent for it in Atom.
If "it" in "only precedent for it" refers to inhertance, can
you explain the sense i
Bob Wyman wrote:
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
That issue is inheritance.
Let me give an example of problematic inheritance...
Some have suggested that there be a "License" that you can associate
with Atom feeds and entries. However, scoping becomes very important in this
* Robin Cover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-22 05:05]:
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> > That issue is inheritance.
> >
> > atom:author is the only precedent for it in Atom.
>
> If "it" in "only precedent for it" refers to inhertance, can
> you explain the sense in which "atom:author
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
And with that, getting back to your question, the answer seems
pretty clear: it depends on whether the extension element is more
like atom:contributor, ie defines a property which an entry may
or may not have, or more like atom:author, ie defines a property
that every entry
Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote:
> That issue is inheritance.
Let me give an example of problematic inheritance...
Some have suggested that there be a "License" that you can associate
with Atom feeds and entries. However, scoping becomes very important in this
case because of some peculi
On 22/8/05 10:28 AM, "Bob Wyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What should an aggregate feed generator like PubSub do when it finds
> an entry in a feed that contains unscoped extensions as children of the
> feed?
It's an interesting problem. A pity now that the idea of segregating
entry-default
* Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-22 01:00]:
> The crux of the question is: what happens when an extension
> that does not specify the scope appears at the feed level?
Let me step back to look at the larger issue for a moment.
That issue is inheritance.
atom:author is the only precede
On 22/8/05 9:22 AM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The crux of the question is: what happens when an extension that does
>> not specify the scope appears at the feed level?
>
> I'm not sure why this question is interesting. What sort of
> application would need to know?
a search e
Paul Hoffman wrote:
> The crux of the question is: what happens when an extension that
> does not specify the scope appears at the feed level?
Robert Sayre asked:
> I'm not sure why this question is interesting. What sort of
> application would need to know?
I ask:
What should an aggregat
On 8/21/05, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 3:35 PM -0700 8/21/05, James M Snell wrote:
> >IMHO, it depends entirely on how the extension is defined. The
> >various extensions I have put together (e.g. comments, expires,
> >etc), the metadata can be placed on the feed/source level
At 3:35 PM -0700 8/21/05, James M Snell wrote:
IMHO, it depends entirely on how the extension is defined. The
various extensions I have put together (e.g. comments, expires,
etc), the metadata can be placed on the feed/source level but is
only relevant on the entry level (same model as ). On
Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 7:24 PM +0100 8/21/05, Peter Robinson wrote:
I do something similar, intending it to mean "the location of the items
described by this feed" (when there is a single location).
Ah, I had missed that. This leads to a question for the mailing list.
Does an informative
At 5:10 PM -0400 8/21/05, Bob Wyman wrote:
I believe the correct answer is "e":
e) Unless otherwise specified, this information pertains to the feed only.
Er, right. Change that list to:
a) this information pertains to each entry (unless otherwise specified)
b) this information pertains to
Paul Hoffman asked:
> Does an informative extension that appears at the feed level
> (as compared to in entries) indicate:
> a) this information pertains to each entry
> b) this information pertains to the feed itself
> c) this information pertains to each entry and to the feed itself
> d) complet
* Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-21 21:55]:
> Ah, I had missed that. This leads to a question for the mailing
> list. Does an informative extension that appears at the feed
> level (as compared to in entries) indicate:
>
> a) this information pertains to each entry
>
> b) this informa
Sunday, August 21, 2005, 8:46:54 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 7:24 PM +0100 8/21/05, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>I do something similar, intending it to mean "the location of the items
>>described by this feed" (when there is a single location).
> Ah, I had missed that. This leads to a question for
At 7:24 PM +0100 8/21/05, Peter Robinson wrote:
I do something similar, intending it to mean "the location of the items
described by this feed" (when there is a single location).
Ah, I had missed that. This leads to a question for the mailing list.
Does an informative extension that appears a
25 matches
Mail list logo
