Thursday, June 26, 2003
- Sam Ruby: Linkage.
A well formed blog entry will have two universal resource identifiers (URI’s) associated with it. One, a permaLink, will identify the preferred external “name” for this blog entry. The other, a postId, will identify the preferred internal “name”.
- Joe Gregorio: Two Identifiers.
Every Echo entry needs two identifiers, which we’ll call, for lack of better names ‘post-id’ and ‘perma-link’. They need to be separate, and they need to be required.
- Post ID spec.
- Timothy Appnel: Echo and the Dublin Core.
- Shelley Powers: The Echo Project for Poets.
- Possible Echo naming conflict. They came first. Sam is asking them if they care.
- Escaped HTML discussion.
- HTML::Entities.
- From footnotes to sidenotes.
- Dave Shea: MOSe.
We’re stuck with Internet Explorer for the next 3 years bare minimum, most likely 6. Let’s start thinking about how we can move forward.
- Apple previews Mac OS X ‘Panther’ Server. Samba 3, JBoss, Postfix.
- Is the semantic web hype?
Now with added meaning
- Steve Champeon: Progressive Enhancement and the Future of Web Design.
- Bruce Eckel: The Zen of Python.
- Dave Hyatt:
I have decided to permanently disable comments in my Safari blog.
- Dan Brickley: New version of XML:FOAF in CPAN. Looks like that syntax for FOAF autodiscovery is the de facto standard now.
- Google Toolbar 2.0, now with Blogger integration.
- Simon Willion: The new RNIB site in CSS.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0. New working draft from June 16.
- My templates page now lists more templates, as well as the archiving scheme I use to generate my URLs.
- CNN: Supreme Court strikes down Texas sodomy law. I’ve mentioned this case before. More detail on sodomylaws.org.
- Michael Barrish: Calibration.
Filed under accessibility, echo, foaf, google, linkdump, python
Also intresting:
http://gemal.dk/archives/000179.html
Comment by Anne van Kesteren — Thursday, June 26, 2003 @ 5:08 pm
re foaf autodiscovery, the xml::foaf behaviour isn’t defacto anything, it simply follows the spec.
which in turn follows general rdf practice.
there is scope for discussing the rel=meta thing, as that link type doesnt have blessing in the html specs (yet?).
also i hope that progress re rdf-in-html will create option for embedding foaf within folk’s homepages.
so xml::foaf does the best that can be expected of anything right now given state of things re html and rdf. that syntax is imho fine, and ok for widescale use, esp now tool support is growing.
dan (from p800 phone in a field in sw england :)
Comment by Dan BrickIey — Thursday, June 26, 2003 @ 5:19 pm
I stopped myself three times from making any of the 17,000 obvious juxtaposition jokes. I’m just going to hit post before I lapse again.
Comment by Grant — Thursday, June 26, 2003 @ 5:26 pm
Great title. You seem to be well in sync with Daypop, top hits :
1. Texan sodomy
2. Google Toolbar
3. Echo roadmap
…
Is it a conspiracy???
btw, I overheard a bit on CNN saying (if I heard correctly) that sodomy in the Texan legal sense included oral sex too. You’d think they’d know one end from the other.
Comment by Danny Ayers — Friday, June 27, 2003 @ 8:34 pm
oh yes has a conspiracy
Comment by jocbrut — Saturday, June 28, 2003 @ 4:17 am
Mark’s page on addiction should be required reading for those that find sexual needs the consuming guide of their lives.
Comment by James — Monday, June 30, 2003 @ 9:25 am
Before I jump all over what James said (because in fact I’m not sure what he meant), let me just say this.
Mark’s Addition page is not about living within moral standards based on what society tells him to do. Its about the slow agonizing damage addiction was doing to his life, and the things since then he has done to overcome that. It by no means attempts to preach about morality.
James, if your entry was a veiled reference to making a big deal about sodomy laws, sodomy laws aren’t about sex, they are about discriminating against a class of people by legislating morality. By striking down those laws, we take the first step towards a kinder and more open society, just like we did in the 1860s and then again in the 1960s.
And if its not such a big deal, why did they make it a law in the first place?
Comment by Adrian — Monday, June 30, 2003 @ 12:53 pm