PUBLIC MARKS with search ietf

To make the statistics below, I took a set of proxy<->server HTTP transactions between the www.win.tue.nl proxy and off-campus servers (18 days worth of traffic, approximately 150Mb in 14501 HTTP transactions)

The HTML 2.0 specification, RFC1866, defines an SGML application and an Internet media type. The specification notes that extensions are planned, but only the text/html; level=2 internet media type and the "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN" document type are defined. This document suggests the use of URIs as system identifiers for document type definitions, allowing decentralized evolution of the language. The use of marked sections as a transition technique and the continued use of the level mechanism for standardized points in the evolution path are discussed.

The HTML 2.0 specification, RFC1866, defines an SGML application and an Internet media type. The specification notes that extensions are planned, but only the text/html; level=2 internet media type and the "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN" document type are defined. This document suggests the use of URIs as system identifiers for document type definitions, allowing decentralized evolution of the language. The use of marked sections as a transition technique and the continued use of the level mechanism for standardized points in the evolution path are discussed.

sr - sam ruby, IBM : IETF is a black hole. I'm not thrilled with them. But it has an external perception of being open.

This document proposes a standard format and a standard navigation mechanism so that mail stores can provide interoperable access to mailboxes and messages over HTTP. Mailbox contents and listings of mailboxes are exposed as Atom Feeds, while messages themselves are downloaded as a document of type message/822. Each mailbox and each message is assigned an HTTP URL, and if permissions checks are satisfied, each message may be downloaded independently.

Second, according to sources close to the development, the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) — which met in New Delhi on the 22nd of this month — is reviewing the ISO transparency issue while simultaneously exploring alternate standards which emerge from bodies like the W3C and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

The HTML WG has several times expressed a strong preference that HTML be officially extended only by standards-track "versions", not by registered extensions. This is the reason why proposed individual feature extensions are being handled with experimental RFCs, rather than as standards-track ones. The responsible Applications Area Director would prefer that IANA start a registry of this type only in coordination with that WG, lest the registration mechanism become an alternative to normal IETF processing.

There are all sorts of forums for proposing and discussing open Web technologies including the IETF, W3C, OASIS and even ECMA. Until all of the underlying technologies in OpenSocial have been handed over to one or more of these standards bodies, this is a case of the proprietary pot calling the proprietary kettle black.

A parser for the multiple XML RSS formats. […] This includes support for the Atom 1.0 syndication format defined in IETF RFC 4287

One single way to grab differents RSS or Atom feed whitout worrying that much.

A parser for the multiple XML RSS formats. […] This includes support for the Atom 1.0 syndication format defined in IETF RFC 4287

One single way to grab differents RSS or Atom feed whitout worrying that much.