OK, that sounds like what I was planning.
I have no desire to define new MIME types. Occasionally the SB plugins
output something in a defined format - so far it's only XSPF, and that's
kind of broken (hidden away in the "Other microcontent" menu for that
reason), but there may be more in fut
Alf Eaton wrote:
PP> Anyone know of any prior art?
MR
PP>>> Is that valid inside the HTML block?
RK>> No, but foo is.
RK>> RTFS: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links.
PP> Excellent - thanks Mark and Ryan! I didn't realise that the "type"
PP> attribute was valid on el
On 1/18/06, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > No, but foo is.
> > >
> > > RTFS: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links.
> >
> > Excellent - thanks Mark and Ryan! I didn't realise that the "type"
> > attribute was valid on elements.
> >
> > Does that require t
Philip Pearson wrote:
> Anyone know of any prior art?
>>>
>>>
>>> Is that valid inside the HTML block?
>>
>>
>> No, but foo is.
>>
>> RTFS: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links.
>
> Excellent - thanks Mark and Ryan! I didn't realise that the "type"
> attribu
Wasn't "text/xml" deprecated?! And instead you are suppose to use
"application/xml" or "application/???+xml", etc. (If I remember
correctly, this was done because of text-transcoders and conflicts
between "text types" specified with HTTP and XML. I think I read this
on Mark Pilgrim's blog...
Hello,
On 1/18/06, Phillip Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Anyone know of any prior art?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is that valid inside the HTML block?
> >
> >
> > No, but foo is.
> >
> > RTFS: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links.
>
>
> Excellent - thanks Mar
Anyone know of any prior art?
Is that valid inside the HTML block?
No, but foo is.
RTFS: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/types.html#type-links.
Excellent - thanks Mark and Ryan! I didn't realise that the "type"
attribute was valid on elements.
Does that require that we serve
This is kind of like those RSS buttons that you see everywhere (that
link to RSS.. which is XML). For example, stuff like:
With semanitcs, I guess this would be:
Yeah. Come to think of it, why aren't we doing RSS/Atom autodiscovery
that way rather than putting elements in the
Hello,
On 1/18/06, Phillip Pearson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The Structured Blogging plugins currently publish the XML source for
> structured posts inside a block after the HTML for the post.
> I'm going to change this sometime soon so that we don't need to use
>