Thanks for the reply, Sam.
I think the misunderstanding has mostly to do with the fact that we
have similar
but slightly different aims. We should try to clearly establish our
respective aims
and find the points we have in common, so that we can agree to solve
the points
we have in common
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:39:23 -0500, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PaceAttributeNamespace does not do that. All it says is is that a given
namespace may be used. For what purpose such a statement is made is
entirely unclear.
Ok, maybe a little more explanation is needed in the Pace. The
Henry Story wrote:
Graham the Robot [1], when real people come and ask me something I'll
talk to them.
Rudeness objection. I'm seeing genuine questions; fobbing them off (as
above) is not helping your case.
cheers
Bill
Danny Ayers wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 21:39:23 -0500, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PaceAttributeNamespace does not do that. All it says is is that a given
namespace may be used. For what purpose such a statement is made is
entirely unclear.
Ok, maybe a little more explanation is needed in
On 27 Jan 2005, at 15:28, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Rudeness objection.
One reaps what one sows. [1]
I'm seeing genuine questions
Since you are asking, I'll answer them.
On 26 Jan 2005, at 4:37 pm, Henry Story wrote:
I think your assertion is wrong. If they are consuming or producing
extended Atom [1]
Danny Ayers wrote:
Yes and no - there is demand for this kind of thing, is the RSS 1.0
community the same as the RDF community? There's a lot of additions
around there... Whatever, even with RSS 2.0 there's Easy News Topics
and all the stuff associated with media (enclosures + Yahoo's
extensions)
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 20:49:12 +, Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Danny Ayers wrote:
Yes and no - there is demand for this kind of thing, is the RSS 1.0
community the same as the RDF community? There's a lot of additions
around there... Whatever, even with RSS 2.0 there's Easy
I've added the following note to the Pace:
A lot of the critical response to this Pace has been based on the
assumption that it is about changes to the Atom syntax. Nothing could
be farther from the truth. Within Atom format it will remain mandatory
that documents are produced with no-namespace
Danny Ayers wrote:
I've added the following note to the Pace:
A lot of the critical response to this Pace has been based on the
assumption that it is about changes to the Atom syntax. Nothing could
be farther from the truth. Within Atom format it will remain mandatory
that documents are produced
On Wednesday, January 26, 2005, at 07:03 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Let's assume that there will be a non-normative appendix which
describes the mapping of the Atom/XML syntax to RDF triples (possibly
via a mapping to RDF/XML or possibly directly). Clearly, such an
appendix would need to define a
On 26 Jan 2005, at 15:03, Sam Ruby wrote:
[...]
But, now lets examine the statement proposed in
PaceAttributeNamespace. It essentially alerts producers of something
that that they need to be aware of. Now a quesion: what do they need
do different with the knowledge that the RDF mapping does
Graham the Robot [1], when real people come and ask me something I'll
talk to them.
Henry
On 26 Jan 2005, at 18:01, Graham wrote:
On 26 Jan 2005, at 4:37 pm, Henry Story wrote:
I think your assertion is wrong. If they are consuming or producing
extended Atom [1]
they will know exactly what
Henry Story wrote:
On 26 Jan 2005, at 15:03, Sam Ruby wrote:
[...]
But, now lets examine the statement proposed in
PaceAttributeNamespace. It essentially alerts producers of something
that that they need to be aware of. Now a quesion: what do they need
do different with the knowledge that the
13 matches
Mail list logo
