norman.walsh.name: Comments on /2005/12/16/xmlkhttp://norman.walsh.name/2005/12/16/xmlk/comments.atom2012-02-13T04:05:43.303483ZComment 1 on /2005/12/16/xmlkhttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00012005-12-16T21:07:05Z2005-12-16T21:07:05ZAnthony B. Coatesda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Quick note, the relative link to the XMLK specification works from the Web page for the post, but not when reading the post from a feed. An absolute link would be marginally better. Cheers, Tony.

Comment 2 on /2005/12/16/xmlkhttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00022005-12-16T21:34:59Z2005-12-16T21:34:59ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Absolute links are a pain in the authoring environment. Instead, I added an xml:base attribute to the atom:content element in the full text feed. If you can talk your reader into reloading it, that should fix the problem. I think.

Comment 3 on /2005/12/16/xmlkhttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00032005-12-16T22:53:27Z2005-12-16T22:53:27ZAnne van Kesterenda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Now the only thing that is left is to have a specification that combines this with a requirement on namespaces and get specifications to use that. Validation is overrated.

Comment 4 on /2005/12/16/xmlkhttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00042005-12-16T23:30:54Z2005-12-16T23:30:54ZAnne van Kesterenda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

By the way, somone pointed out to me that your draft makes the XML Declaration optional. I assume that was not the intend as it builds on top of XML 1.1?

Comment 5 on /2005/12/16/xmlkhttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00052006-01-06T17:42:28Z2006-01-06T17:42:28ZMatej Ceplda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Hi, Norman,

how does your browser work with the following URL of yours?

ttp://www.w3.org/2003/01/13-tagmem-irc.html#T20-55-27

(somehow "h" is missing from http).

Matej

Comment 6 on /2005/12/16/xmlkhttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00062006-01-06T19:42:20Z2006-01-06T19:42:20ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Sorry about that Matej. It was just a typo. Fixed now.

Comment 7 on /2005/12/16/xmlkhttp://norman.walsh.name/2010/09/25/oauth#comment00072006-01-06T19:44:46Z2006-01-06T19:44:46ZNorman Walshda39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709

Anne, with respect to the XML Declaration and 1.0 or 1.1, I don't think I feel strongly about it. Back in '03, I was probably more optimistic about the near-term future of XML 1.1. If XMLK went anywhere, I wouldn't mind if it was built on top of 1.0 and 1.1. Not that I think it's ever going to go anywhere.