- Angemeldet am: 2009-03-27
- Letzte Anmeldung: 2010-11-23
- CTM (Manager, Developer, 2009-03-27)
- CXTM (Developer, 2009-10-21)
- Dublin Core (Developer, 2010-03-28)
- Maiana public (Reporter, 2010-07-08)
- SDShare (Manager, 2010-10-06)
- Standards (Developer, 2010-03-28)
- TMCL (Manager, Developer, 2009-03-27)
- TMDM (Developer, 2009-09-16)
- TMQL (Manager, Developer, 2009-03-27)
- TMRM (Developer, 2010-03-28)
- XTM (Developer, 2010-03-28)
Gemeldete Tickets: 2
- 22:09 SDShare Bug #3665: A rel= value for fragments?
- Originally we did have a type in there for topicmapdata. I'll check with Marc why we took it out. I *think* we decide...
- 22:07 SDShare Bug #3670: The ID of fragment entries
- Me neither. It might have been along the lines that the fragment id is not the topic id?
- 21:53 SDShare Bug #3676: 5.4.1 A clean start
- Agreed, this text sucks.
It's currently only trying to say that you grab a snapshot merge it into the local map an...
- 21:50 SDShare Bug #3740: Why isn't sdshare:dependency an atom:link?
- This is certainly nicer. Less extension elements etc. It comes down to how much pain do we cause by either removing t...
- 21:44 SDShare Bug #3707 (Rejected): Snapshot feed and sdshare:ServerSrcLocatorPrefix
- Having established we do need it. My proposal is to leave it where it is.
- 21:41 SDShare Bug #3754: Impacts of sd:dependency unclear
- The spec is not clear. Here is what it means :)
For each action you are about to perform wrt syncing a given colle...
- 08:36 SDShare Bug #3666 (Assigned): Terminology change
- 08:36 SDShare Bug #3665 (Assigned): A rel= value for fragments?
- We need this.
- 08:34 SDShare Bug #3705: Fragment creation algorithm outdated
- This was for XTM 1.0 and related model semantics. I am tempted to say we standardize on current tmdm and XTM 2.0
- 08:33 SDShare Feature #3697 (Assigned): A RELAX-NG schema for SDshare
- Yes, we should do this.
Auch abrufbar als: Atom