Tuesday, January 18, 2005, 12:00:27 AM, you wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2005, at 10:47 AM, David Powell wrote:
>> I've just updated this proposal thanks to some of the feedback that I
>> received. There is a change history at the end of the document.
> I'm OK with this. Also OK without it, but I g
On Jan 15, 2005, at 10:47 AM, David Powell wrote:
I've just updated this proposal thanks to some of the feedback that I
received. There is a change history at the end of the document.
I'm OK with this. Also OK without it, but I gather that it would
improve some people's comfort levels. Anyone
I've just updated this proposal thanks to some of the feedback that I
received. There is a change history at the end of the document.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtensionConstruct
--
Dave
On Thursday, January 13, 2005, at 03:31 PM, David Powell wrote:
If there is some way to lose atom:notation without introducing
ambiguity it would be better (if something is needed, what about
atom:type as used on content - might that be a suitable replacement?)
How about: "a Structured Extension
Thursday, January 13, 2005, 8:17:58 PM, you wrote:
> Danny Ayers wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:45:07 +, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> I very much like the general approach of this Pace, I reckon it's very
>> close to what's needed.
>>
>> If there is some way to lose at
Danny Ayers wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:45:07 +, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I very much like the general approach of this Pace, I reckon it's very
close to what's needed.
If there is some way to lose atom:notation without introducing
ambiguity it would be better (if something is
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:45:07 +, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I very much like the general approach of this Pace, I reckon it's very
close to what's needed.
If there is some way to lose atom:notation without introducing
ambiguity it would be better (if something is needed, what abo
Thursday, January 13, 2005, 1:34:24 AM, you wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2005, at 1:28 am, David Powell wrote:
>> It needs to be like this: (because namespace defaults don't apply to
>> attributes.)
>>
>> http://purl.org/atom/ns#draft-ietf-atompub-format-04";>
>> ...
>>
>> http://purl.org/atom/n
On 13 Jan 2005, at 1:28 am, David Powell wrote:
It needs to be like this: (because namespace defaults don't apply to
attributes.)
http://purl.org/atom/ns#draft-ietf-atompub-format-04";>
...
...
Graham
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Thursday, January 13, 2005, 12:57:47 AM, you wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2005, at 9:19 pm, David Powell wrote:
>> I've just posted PaceExtensionConstruct. As it is an extensibility
>> Pace, it would be good if we could schedule it for discussion with the
>> others.
>
Thursday, January 13, 2005, 12:49:26 AM, you wrote:
> I'm not sure why you would have two different mappings. Wouldn't it just
> be an XML property every time?
Not sure what you mean by an "XML property" - do you mean the contents
of the element escaped and included as a string? (like
rdf:parse
On 12 Jan 2005, at 9:19 pm, David Powell wrote:
I've just posted PaceExtensionConstruct. As it is an extensibility
Pace, it would be good if we could schedule it for discussion with the
others.
Me likey. Except:
"The root element of the construct MUST have an attribute with the
qual
David Powell wrote:
I think it would be bad to have two different mappings for the same
extension depending on whether the instance happenned to contain any
tags.
I'm not sure why you would have two different mappings. Wouldn't it just
be an XML property every time?
I can't think of a use case
On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, at 05:27 PM, David Powell wrote:
Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 10:51:58 PM, you wrote:
The root element of a Structured Extension construct MAY have
attributes, it MAY contain well-formed XML content, or it MAY be
empty.
It took me a minute to realize that the conte
Thursday, January 13, 2005, 12:25:16 AM, you wrote:
> David Powell wrote:
>>I've just posted PaceExtensionConstruct. As it is an extensibility
>>Pace, it would be good if we could schedule it for discussion with the
>>others.
>>
>>http://www.intertwing
Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 10:51:58 PM, you wrote:
>> The root element of a Structured Extension construct MAY have
>> attributes, it MAY contain well-formed XML content, or it MAY be
>> empty.
> It took me a minute to realize that the content of a structured
> extension element could be a
David Powell wrote:
I've just posted PaceExtensionConstruct. As it is an extensibility
Pace, it would be good if we could schedule it for discussion with the
others.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtensionConstruct
I like this one. I think the "atom:notation" attri
The root element of a Structured Extension construct MAY have
attributes, it MAY contain well-formed XML content, or it MAY be
empty.
It took me a minute to realize that the content of a structured
extension element could be a text node--that it needn't have element
children. The name "structur
I've just posted PaceExtensionConstruct. As it is an extensibility
Pace, it would be good if we could schedule it for discussion with the
others.
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceExtensionConstruct
--
Dave
19 matches
Mail list logo
