On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 07:53:33 -0800, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Software which discovers that the FeedLink URI is different from that
used to retrieve the atom:feed document containing MAY choose to use
the FeedLink URI for subsequent fetches.
Nicely put. +1.
--
Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=-
On 26 Jan 2005, at 2:37 am, Eric Scheid wrote:
I also concur. An aggregator is free to do so, but I don't think it
should
be a requirement. We already have a mechanism for the publisher to
redirect
requests to a new location (HTTP 304, 301).
An aggregator might also only do so in extremis - if
On Jan 26, 2005, at 7:27 AM, Graham wrote:
Very, very good point. The text needs something along the lines of
Atom producers MUST NOT expect consumers which found the document at
a different URI to switch to requesting it from the URI specified.,
or something less clunky. Otherwise it's going
On 27/1/05 7:47 AM, Sjoerd Visscher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The whole point of xml:base is that an application that stores a page
outside of its original context can add an xml:base to prevent losing
the original location context.
browsers don't.
all they know is here is a URL to a
On 26/1/05 2:16 AM, Anne van Kesteren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the proposal in general though I wonder why an absolute URI is
required.
One of the intended uses is for when a browser downloads a feed resource to
disk, and then hands that file to an atom handler application. Once that
On 26/1/05 4:44 AM, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed. Then the only comment that remains is:
# Also, could an additional requirement be added. Namely that
# aggregators use the URI in |rel=self| to check for the feed next
# time?
-1
If I got the feed from location X, I may
On 26/1/05 11:50 AM, Martin Duerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A relative URI would only be useful if there is in fact an xml:base in
effect. With no xml:base then the relative reference would be useless.
That's pretty obvious, and applies to all other links. If we want to
point that out in
+1 The alternative is that blasted feed:// URI type...
-joe
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:44 -0800, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not yet taken up by the WG, depends on the discussion that comes with
this call. Same rules as all the others: there has to be a positive WG
consensus that
On 25/1/05 11:17 AM, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not yet taken up by the WG, depends on the discussion that comes with
this call. Same rules as all the others: there has to be a positive WG
consensus that each adds to the base specification. -Tim
+1 for this pace - the tangible
