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

Re: Hierarchy - Part 2 - How we think our data would look in ATOM

To: "Sylvain Hellegouarch" <sh@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Hierarchy - Part 2 - How we think our data would look in ATOM
From: "Joe Gregorio" <joe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:31:26 -0400
Cc: "Tim Bray" <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>, "Yaron Goland" <yarong@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "atom-protocol@xxxxxxx" <atom-protocol@xxxxxxx>
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=h8bmt1MeXq2cKMrXaGP0Ozb+QXqdnuq7/Ib4sps5s8Xllrv9N15jFn0m9SaKd3Lzvtk8otg3eGHd47V2E+IpAp5LkLxhy8x15vCevTJ7w6l0sXHxS9WQ8gbJwExbnrhCE4wOf8UCxb0JtmKL4bzl1CzFxy3vhZkjjf5LFzQ2DCI=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=sm34kUodXomyVWsmENBtUIUOZZWG6zsp+VyF6u3vCSaWpn3bTH1QmVD6SpPR2a9Z+oBdOzrqI5Ob7U4FxfjjYKmzN1ZUdPHg0BanUkxGnB/6uq8GHbBZ4x6kH+W1kv+OorTvhJFnu0XISAWtqhd5GbMZHltVrkGaqwKewVb//WY=
In-reply-to: <467A38A3.6080706@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-protocol.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-protocol-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <AE9A8CBCE1A9744D975A9FBBF822DD784DE1536BE0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <8B0ECB72-FC84-410F-8BA6-FB513D0316F1@xxxxxxx> <467A38A3.6080706@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-atom-protocol@xxxxxxxxxxxx


On 6/21/07, Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

After reading all of Yaron's messages there's not much we can argue
about really. As Tim points out, the structure Windows Live seems to be
using is so far from what Atom can do that I can understand why Yaron's
team didn't choose Atom and AtomPub in the first place. Tim is also
right that the way things have been brought in the first place were
certainly not the best way to approach that fact. Enough said I guess :)

+1

Thanks to Yaron for taking some time with his emails though.


Agreed. Thanks Yaron.

  -joe

--
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org

Follow-Ups:
- RE: Hierarchy - Part 2 - How we think our data would look in ATOM
  - From: Yaron Goland

References:
- Hierarchy - Part 2 - How we think our data would look in ATOM
  - From: Yaron Goland
- Re: Hierarchy - Part 2 - How we think our data would look in ATOM
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: Hierarchy - Part 2 - How we think our data would look in ATOM
  - From: Sylvain Hellegouarch

Prev by Date: Re: Hierarchy - Part 2 - How we think our data would look in ATOM
Next by Date: RE: Is it just us?
Previous by thread: Re: Hierarchy - Part 2 - How we think our data would look in ATOM
Next by thread: RE: Hierarchy - Part 2 - How we think our data would look in ATOM
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread