James Cerra wrote:
I'd solve it in the same manner that XML namespaces solved the multiple
context
problem: by providing a default context as well as explicitly named contexts.
The default context works the same way as xml:base or the the default xmlns
works now. Explicit contexts would
On Jul 20, 2005, at 08:08, James Cerra wrote:
HTML has many entities predefined. If you use HTML content, are those
entities allowed (after being escaped, of course)? That would make it
really
really hard to normalize to text or XML without doctype processing.
No. You are supposed to use
On 21 Jul 2005, at 4:43 am, James Cerra wrote:
In an XSLT-based Atom-to-XHTML processor, that is a large cost when
HTML
includes many many many entities. At least, I think so and have
ignored the
problem because I can't think of a good way to solve it.
Yes, but your proposed solution
On 21 Jul 2005, at 7:29 pm, James Cerra wrote:
Graham,
Yes, but your proposed solution just requires people at the other end
of the chain to do the hard work. A common theme in the design of
Atom is minimizing the amount of work that must be done by publishers
(of which there are many) vs
* James Cerra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-21 20:45]:
Aren't HTML's character references harder for publishing
software to produce compared with HTML numeric references?
[…] The only feed producer software that probably likes HTML
character references above all else are human hands. And if
On 20 Jul 2005, at 6:08 am, James Cerra wrote:
I feel that HTML entities other than numeric references, amp;gt;,
amp;lt;,
amp;amp;, amp;apos;, and amp;quote; should be depreciated in HTML
content.
Disagree. All it needs is a simple look-up table in the HTML parser.
Atom should explicitly
e,
Section 3.2.2:
--
The atom:uri element's content conveys an IRI associated with the
person. Person constructs MAY contain an atom:uri element, but MUST
NOT contain more than one. The content of atom:uri in a Person
construct MUST be an IRI reference.
There is
James Cerra wrote:
xml:base is a broken specification. At the simplest, it's just a lame attempt
at abbreviating strings. However, it solves that problem in the worst
possible manner. As the RDF serializations show, what is needed is a
name/value pair simular to entities or xml namespaces.
Sjoerd Visscher,
xml:base is a broken specification. At the simplest, it's just a lame
attempt at abbreviating strings. However, it solves that problem in the
worst possible manner. As the RDF serializations show, what is needed is
a name/value pair simular to entities or xml
Aristotle Pagaltzis,
Thanks for the clarifications.
Section 1.2:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom
I guess consistancy is not a requirement of the Atom spec. By
convention, this should be all lowercase. Existing software
for Atom 0.3 has to be recoded for Atom 1.0, so
Graham,
I feel that HTML entities other than numeric references, amp;gt;,
amp;lt;,
amp;amp;, amp;apos;, and amp;quote; should be depreciated in HTML
content.
Disagree. All it needs is a simple look-up table in the HTML parser.
In an XSLT-based Atom-to-XHTML processor, that is a
James Cerra wrote:
You might be right but then it should be named atom:homepage. Calling it
atom:uri is misleading.
It's an arbitrary IRI associated with the person... it's most common
use will be a link to a homepage but that's not the only use for it. I
could use it, for
* James Cerra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-21 05:00]:
Sjoerd Visscher,
That's because it is not an attempt at abbreviating strings,
but to preserve the meaning of relative URIs, when content is
used outside of its original context.
Same thing. You are framing the question in a manner
On Wednesday, July 20, 2005, at 10:22 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* James Cerra [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-07-21 05:00]:
Sjoerd Visscher,
That's because it is not an attempt at abbreviating strings,
but to preserve the meaning of relative URIs, when content is
used outside of its original context.
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005, James Cerra wrote:
Aristotle Pagaltzis,
Thanks for the clarifications.
Section 1.2:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom
I guess consistancy is not a requirement of the Atom spec. By
convention, this should be all lowercase. Existing
I took some notes while reading the specification. Not all of them are good
notes, and I was cranky while writing them. Still, they do have some issues
or slightly vague points about the spec from my view point.
Section 1.2:
http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom
I guess consistancy is
16 matches
Mail list logo
