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

RE: Atom extensibility

To: "'Atom WG'" <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: Atom extensibility
From: "Jeremy Gray" <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:48:02 -0800
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Reply-to: <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bill de hÓra
> Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 8:04 AM
> To: 'Atom WG'
> Subject: Re: Atom extensibility

--snip--

> I'm +1 on not requiring an RDF mapping for Atom. Those of us that like 
> to use RDF can figure out how to.

+1

Jeremy

References:
- Re: Atom extensibility
  - From: Bill de hÓra

Prev by Date: RE: Atom extensibility, RDF, and GRDDL
Next by Date: RE: Atom extensibility, RDF, and GRDDL
Previous by thread: Re: Atom extensibility
Next by thread: Re: Atom extensibility
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread