On 2006/03/19, at 3:43 AM, James Holderness wrote:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
We had a long -- probably too long -- discussion of these matters
in October, leading up to the registration of the link relations.
I was concerned about the possibility of them being too generic,
but everyone wanted it, even though I explicitly pointed out
that conflicting uses could arise. Everyone seemed OK with that.
I don't have a problem with the link relations. As far as your use
of them in Feed History, I argued against your choice of direction
at the time (as did several other people I believe). My aggregator
works fine with both directions, so I can live with the decision
you made, but I did expect you at least to make some mention of the
compatibility issues in the spec (in fact I thought you had agreed
to do that).
I don't remember agreeing to that. I'm not hugely against it, but if
this is now a concern of the WG, other users of the relations
probably should make the same caveat as well, independent of the
resolution of PaceReverseLinks.
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
