Bill de hÓra wrote:
...
ultraliberal/+halfassedwebdav
...
I guess I need you to explain that joke.
Julian (confused)
--
bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Robert Sayre wrote:
I suggest we register a new top-level:
ultraliberal/..
Huge +1 to this:
ultraliberal/+pimpmyfeed
ultraliberal/+worksforme
ultraliberal/+diveintoaggregatorshite
ultraliberal/+halfassedwebdav
Perhaps we could get this through the IETF mincer by April 1st?
(...so... why are
Tim Bray wrote:
On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:00 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I was going for a single media type for all of RSS, with (IIRC) an
optional "version" parameter.
Well, if someone wanted to strive for descriptiveness, they should
register, for 0.9, 1.0, and 2.0
I suggest we register a new
On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:00 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I was going for a single media type for all of RSS, with (IIRC) an
optional "version" parameter.
Well, if someone wanted to strive for descriptiveness, they should
register, for 0.9, 1.0, and 2.0
application/the-rss-that-grew-in-a-neglected
[[ Co-chair hat on ]]
At 12:34 AM -0500 3/30/05, Randy Charles Morin wrote:
Do-over. Can this be done thru the Atom WG and how?
It's not in our charter, and it is not useful to our chartered work.
The current registration in our WG document serves our purposes. You
can certainly pursue this as an
RSS processors support both. Certainly
the fact that there are major similarities makes it much easier to
support both.
If we do go for a separate subtype for each, it might be good to do
something to ensure that they're unambiguous. For example,
"application/rss+xml" wou
TECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 12:47 AM
> To: Tim Bray
> Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Atomlist
> Subject: Re: application/rss+xml
>
>
>
> I tried; the official response [1] was that the IESG wanted
> to see an
> stable and available spec -- by
Yeah, I know. I *think* I have a better chance by getting some sort of
meaningful answer from CC first, and taking that to Harvard to confirm
(or just tell them ;) -- such a query directed to Harvard itself mind
wind its way through the halls aimlessly for quite some time, if indeed
it ever mad
Mark Nottingham wrote:
it's more an issue of whether the CC Attribution + ShareAlike 1.0
license terms are satisified by the I-D boilerplate. I've just asked CC
that very question...
Not really. It says "identical". If it were identical, there wouldn't be
a question.
Seems like you'd have to ta
Mark Nottingham wrote:
I tried; the official response [1] was that the IESG wanted to see an
stable and available spec -- by their standards -- for RSS before
putting it in the standards tree. Just doing a registration doesn't cut
it.
I worked on an RSS 2.0 I-D [2] for a while and then stopp
it's more an issue of whether the CC Attribution + ShareAlike 1.0
license terms are satisified by the I-D boilerplate. I've just asked CC
that very question...
On Mar 29, 2005, at 10:01 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
I tried; the official response [1] was that the IESG wanted to
I was going for a single media type for all of RSS, with (IIRC) an
optional "version" parameter.
Generally, having a media type identify a particular version of a
format is frowned upon; think about HTML, XML, etc. It's for
coarse-grained identification of the format.
Of course, given that RSS
IESG approval of an Internet-Draft with a media type registration
would
register the type, yes. Whether we should try to register application/
rss+xml is a different question though.
D'oh, Randy wanted rss+xml, not atom+xml. Missed the point. -Tim
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:47 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I tried; the official response [1] was that the IESG wanted to see an
stable and available spec -- by their standards -- for RSS before
putting it in the standards tree. Just doing a registration doesn't
cut it.
I worked on an RSS 2.0 I-D [2]
val of an Internet-Draft with a media type registration would
> > register the type, yes. Whether we should try to register application/
> > rss+xml is a different question though.
>
> D'oh, Randy wanted rss+xml, not atom+xml. Missed the point. -Tim
>
>
On Mar 29, 2005, at 8:55 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
IESG approval of an Internet-Draft with a media type registration would
register the type, yes. Whether we should try to register application/
rss+xml is a different question though.
D'oh, Randy wanted rss+xml, not atom+xml. Missed the
* Tim Bray wrote:
>On Mar 29, 2005, at 7:37 PM, Randy Charles Morin wrote:
>> k, let's start by admitting my true goal is to get application/rss+xml
>> into the registered IANA media types [1].
>
>Uh, I think we can register it as a side-effect of getting the format
On Mar 29, 2005, at 7:37 PM, Randy Charles Morin wrote:
k, let's start by admitting my true goal is to get application/rss+xml
into the registered IANA media types [1].
Uh, I think we can register it as a side-effect of getting the format
draft through the process with an RFC number. Right,
k, let's start by admitting my true goal is to get application/rss+xml
into the registered IANA media types [1]. I'm thinking this could be
done by describing the mechanism extension to
RSS in an IETF draft, along with the required media types registration
mumbo and passing it thru t
19 matches
Mail list logo
