Folks, I hate to be insistent, however, I think that in the mail below I
offered some pretty compelling reasons why lists should be entries rather
than turning feeds into lists. Could someone please comment on this? Is
there some point that I'm completely missing? What is wrong with my
suggestion
What would you like the working group to do?
On 31/08/2005, at 8:36 AM, Bob Wyman wrote:
Folks, I hate to be insistent, however, I think that in the mail
below I
offered some pretty compelling reasons why lists should be entries
rather
than turning feeds into lists. Could someone please
It may very well be more useful, but we shouldn't mandate it in any
way. Let people build whatever kind of applications they want with Atom.
Bob Wyman wrote:
Folks, I hate to be insistent, however, I think that in the mail below I
offered some pretty compelling reasons why lists should be
What is wrong with my
suggestion that lists-are-entries is much more useful than the alternative?
Bob: Well, off the top of my head...
(1) If the lists are embedded as (X)HTML, then only aggregators that
display markup will be able to do anything with them, and
headline-only aggregators will
On 31 Aug 2005, at 6:22 pm, Roger B. wrote:
(1) If the lists are embedded as (X)HTML, then only aggregators that
display markup will be able to do anything with them, and
headline-only aggregators will be useless.
And damn those unthinking bloggers who embed their paragraphs as (X)
HTML,
* Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-31 20:40]:
On 31 Aug 2005, at 6:22 pm, Roger B. wrote:
(1) If the lists are embedded as (X)HTML, then only
aggregators that display markup will be able to do anything
with them, and headline-only aggregators will be useless.
And damn those unthinking
Hi,
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-31 20:40]:
Another feature is the list can be formatted properly XHTML,
considerably improving legibly over a bunch of floating
entries.
Straw man. The onus for the legibility of an XHTML-formatted list
lies with the publisher;
