James M Snell wrote:
Bob Wyman wrote:
* Why did you choose the word license when Atom itself uses the
word rights for a very similar (if not identical) concept?
Because I specifically wanted to differentiate the two.
IIRC James' answer to a mail I wrote him about the very same
James Snell wrote:
[1] The relationship [between license and atom:right] is
subtle, but important ...
[2] I specifically wanted to differentiate the two. ...
[3] The two serve different, but related, purposes. The
two should not contradict each other. If they do,
consumers must go back to
James,
My apologies if these questions and comments have been dealt with
before:
* What is the expected or intended relationship between data carried
in the atom:rights element and data pointed to by the license relationship?
* Why did you choose the word license when Atom
Hello Bob,
Bob Wyman wrote:
James,
My apologies if these questions and comments have been dealt with
before:
* What is the expected or intended relationship between data carried
in the atom:rights element and data pointed to by the license relationship?
The relationship is
Hello Bjoern,
Please take a look at the latest draft:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-07.txt
- James
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
* James M Snell wrote:
Another concern that was raised to me by a colleague is that the license
resource being pointed to could
* James M Snell wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-license-06.txt
I do not understand section 4, it says the security considerations of
RFC 4287 apply; the only consideration there that could apply is that
IRIs are used, and as such considerations of RFC 3987
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
[snip]
Perhaps you might to say something like, when used in Atom documents,
the security considerations for handling links in Atom documents apply.
Yeah, this would be better. This draft doesn't introduce any security
concerns of it's own.
I would personally
* James M Snell wrote:
Another concern that was raised to me by a colleague is that the license
resource being pointed to could change over time, meaning that the
license being referenced today may not be the same license being used
tomorrow even tho URIs may be exactly the same. If the license
Based on this and other feedback, I think I've come up with language
that is much more effective. It keeps feed level licenses but very
clearly specifies what they cover. I am putting the polishing touches
on the draft and will send it off shortly.
- James
Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
[snip[
Le 16 août 06 à 01:16, Bjoern Hoehrmann a écrit :
* James M Snell wrote:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-
license-06.txt
I do not quite understand feed-level licenses, the draft just says
what they don't cover, not what they do cover. Say I make a feed with
the
10 matches
Mail list logo
