On Jan 31, 2005, at 6:27 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 3:46 PM -0800 1/31/05, Mark Nottingham wrote:If this is the direction we go in on this, that's fine with me, but I think that the spec needs to say *something* about managing feed state,
Why?
Because it's a *very* common use case, but we don't provide any guidance on how it's done, which IMO will lead to interoperability problems. Since the WG doesn't want to nail this down, I think it's the least we could do to point out that there may be dragons there (or at least the need for more work).
What does that add to the document? A MAY with a hint of an extension doesn't seem to add much.
Well, I tried the other way...
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
