Re: Straw Poll: age:expires vs. dcterms:valid (was Re: Unofficial last call on draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-04.txt)

2005-10-10 Thread James Holderness
James M Snell: I would expect anyone who uses RSS 1.0 would be more likely to use extensions that are well suited to RSS 1.0 and that anyone who uses Atom 1.0 would be more likely to use extensions that are well suited to Atom. If there is the possibility of cross-over, great, if not, that's

Re: Straw Poll: age:expires vs. dcterms:valid (was Re: Unofficial last call on draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-04.txt) On Oct 8, 2005, at 8:37 AM, James M Snell wrote: I wanted to indicate that a gi

2005-10-10 Thread Antone Roundy
Oops, sent this from the wrong address on Saturday. No wonder it didn't get through. On Oct 8, 2005, at 8:37 AM, James M Snell wrote: I wanted to indicate that a given entry must expire at Midnight on Dec, 12, 2005 (GMT). using age:expires: [snip] using dcterms:valid

Re: Straw Poll: age:expires vs. dcterms:valid (was Re: Unofficial last call on draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-04.txt)

2005-10-09 Thread James Holderness
I'd be in favour of dcterms:valid (preferably restricted in form) for the following reasons: * I'm worried that producers of RSS 1.0 feeds would be more likely to use dcterms:valid and thus consumers would be obliged to support it anyway. * dcterms:valid has slightly more functionality in

Re: Straw Poll: age:expires vs. dcterms:valid (was Re: Unofficial last call on draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-04.txt)

2005-10-09 Thread Phil Ringnalda
Mark Nottingham wrote: I'm torn; on the one hand, dcterms is already defined, and already used in other feed formats; on the other hand, the syntax is less-than-simple. Indeed. A perfectly, utterly valid dcterms:valid value: start=George W. Bush; scheme=US Presidents; name=Bush II I'm -1

Re: Straw Poll: age:expires vs. dcterms:valid (was Re: Unofficial last call on draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-04.txt)

2005-10-09 Thread James M Snell
James Holderness wrote: I'd be in favour of dcterms:valid (preferably restricted in form) for the following reasons: * I'm worried that producers of RSS 1.0 feeds would be more likely to use dcterms:valid and thus consumers would be obliged to support it anyway. I would expect anyone

Re: Straw Poll: age:expires vs. dcterms:valid (was Re: Unofficial last call on draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-04.txt)

2005-10-09 Thread Eric Scheid
On 10/10/05 2:02 PM, James M Snell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * dcterms:valid has slightly more functionality in that you get to specify a start date. I don't necessarily want more functionality. The atom:updated date gives us a perfectly good start date. Perhaps atom:published would be

Re: Straw Poll: age:expires vs. dcterms:valid (was Re: Unofficial last call on draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-04.txt)

2005-10-09 Thread Mark Nottingham
Yeah, that kind of tears it for me; we could profile it, but I'm less than convinced that the potential reuse is worth it (esp. when it's so trivial to map age:expires into dcterms:valid). +1 to age:expires. On 09/10/2005, at 10:21 AM, Phil Ringnalda wrote: Mark Nottingham wrote:

Re: Straw Poll: age:expires vs. dcterms:valid (was Re: Unofficial last call on draft-snell-atompub-feed-expires-04.txt)

2005-10-09 Thread James M Snell
Yeah, I've been thinking a bit about that. The only thing that was holding me back was that atom:published is optional and only appears on atom:entry. I wanted the extension to be able to work on the feed level also. That said, the spec could be updated to say that IF the published date

re: Straw Poll: age:expires vs. dcterms:valid

2005-10-08 Thread Robert Sayre
Just like every other dublin core element, dc:valid is very good for labeling things, and very bad in a wire format. In fact, I've even read emails from OCLC folks claiming that the few restrictions RSS1 modules make don't apply when using them in Atom or RSS2. So, I don't really see how it could