[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [syndication] Re: Autodiscovery (was: Fawcette's feed)

To: syndication@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [syndication] Re: Autodiscovery (was: Fawcette's feed)
From: Klaus Johannes Rusch <KlausRusch@atmedia.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2003 15:57:44 -0100
Organization: atmedia.net
References: <b6goh1+mfa2@eGroups.com> <3E8BF61E.3AB98C8D@atmedia.net> <067001c2f9c0$e686dbb0$2000a8c0@wkearney.com> <3E8C08C8.80DC1C31@atmedia.net> <076f01c2f9f9$2e9980a0$2000a8c0@wkearney.com>
Reply-to: KlausRusch@atmedia.net

Bill Kearney wrote:

> But yeah, the specs 'allow' all sorts of things.  Let's try to avoid the trap of
> being so ambiguous it's useless situation found in many specs these days.

Which actually raises a good point: Has autodiscovery been formally specified? (Not
with an example but a specification saying what is required, what is optional etc.)

--
Klaus Johannes Rusch
KlausRusch@atmedia.net
http://www.atmedia.net/KlausRusch/

Follow-Ups:
- Autodiscovery standards and formal specification
  - From: "Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net>

References:
- Re: Fawcette's feed
  - From: "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@ideaspace.net>
- Re: Autodiscovery (was: Fawcette's feed)
  - From: Klaus Johannes Rusch <KlausRusch@atmedia.net>
- Re: [syndication] Re: Autodiscovery (was: Fawcette's feed)
  - From: "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@ideaspace.net>
- Re: [syndication] Re: Autodiscovery (was: Fawcette's feed)
  - From: Klaus Johannes Rusch <KlausRusch@atmedia.net>
- Re: [syndication] Re: Autodiscovery (was: Fawcette's feed)
  - From: "Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@ideaspace.net>

Prev by Date: Re: [syndication] Re: Autodiscovery (was: Fawcette's feed)
Next by Date: Autodiscovery standards and formal specification
Previous by thread: Re: [syndication] Re: Autodiscovery (was: Fawcette's feed)
Next by thread: Autodiscovery standards and formal specification
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread