On 5/6/05, Martin Duerst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 11:50 05/05/06, Sam Ruby wrote:
> >
> >Tim Bray wrote:
> >> +1
> >> There are people who want to publish feeds without rel="alternate"
> links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to do
> without strong reaso
At 11:50 05/05/06, Sam Ruby wrote:
>
>Tim Bray wrote:
>> +1
>> There are people who want to publish feeds without rel="alternate"
links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to do
without strong reasons, as in loss of interoperability. I don't see the
reasons here as st
Sam Ruby wrote:
Something that WOULD attract my attention is somebody saying "here is a
set of feeds that I would like to provide that I can't provide in a
valid way according to any of the available RSS specifications."
Sam,
would:
work for you? This could make/encourage those who don't have a
Sam Ruby wrote:
Graham wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote:
FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to
do additional work:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html
Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous.
+1 to the Pa
On 6 May 2005, at 1:26 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:
My concern is not that tools will need to be updated. My concern
is that tools won't know that they need to update. How will they
know that they need to update to handle a set of feeds that nobody
is currently providing?
How is this different to an
Graham wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote:
FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to
do additional work:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html
Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous.
+1 to the Pace
This Pace is n
Graham wrote:
On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote:
FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool to
do additional work:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html
Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous.
+1 to the Pace
+1 as well.
On 6 May 2005, at 3:50 am, Sam Ruby wrote:
FYI: we have an instance proof of this requiring an existing tool
to do additional work:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13983.html
Tools will have to be updated to work with Atom? Scandalous.
+1 to the Pace
Graham
Tim Bray wrote:
+1
There are people who want to publish feeds without rel="alternate"
links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to
do without strong reasons, as in loss of interoperability. I don't see
the reasons here as strong enough. -Tim
FYI: we have an instance
+1
There are people who want to publish feeds without rel="alternate"
links. I'm against telling people they can't do something they want to
do without strong reasons, as in loss of interoperability. I don't see
the reasons here as strong enough. -Tim
ax
Subject: Re: PaceOptionalFeedLink
>
> So, if accepted, we'd have 2 conflicting rules. The Pace needs an edit)
D'oh. You're right. I've edited the Pace, to just delete the MUST.
Robert Sayre
+1 for nor requiring the link element.
Best regards, Julian
>
> So, if accepted, we'd have 2 conflicting rules. The Pace needs an edit)
D'oh. You're right. I've edited the Pace, to just delete the MUST.
Robert Sayre
On 1 May 2005, at 12:16 pm, Eric Scheid wrote:
how do I then point to both my full content feed *and* my summary
only feed
(and just quietly, my titles only feed)?
I hope that you don't. Unless we have a programmatic way of
describing the differences between those links, the best policy is
fo
On 1/5/05 5:03 AM, "Robert Sayre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:link element
> with a rel attribute value of "alternate" that has the same
> combination of type and hreflang attribute values."
how do I then point to both my full content feed
--On April 30, 2005 3:03:50 PM -0400 Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:link element
> with a rel attribute value of "alternate" that has the same
> combination of type and hreflang attribute values."
That actually specifies somethi
== Abstract ==
Remove the requirement for a feed-level link element.
== Status ==
Open
== Rationale ==
The requirement makes people jump through hoops for little gain, since
there is a strong incentive to provide the link if you have something.
Unlike entries, feeds are almost always derefere
17 matches
Mail list logo
