I don't have that much of an opinion now on the head in entry and various
other proposals.
But I do find your comment that moving something off to an extension
essentially kills it to be a very important remark. This is clearly
to say that Atom has not yet dealt with the extension part of the charter.
And even though many people seem to willing to create fill in language
for that part of the spec to make it seem like this part has been
addressed, your on the ground initial reaction is the correct one:
there is no well defined extension mechanism.
So perhaps what we could do in the next weeks is fill in the work
I started in my proposal AtomAsRDF, that would allow Atom to be
seen as an RDF/XML document, though one constrained by an Relax-NG syntax.
This will require a week or two of serious group effort, but then extensions
will fall out from the RDF side of things.
In the mean time I am fully behind every movement to remove non core elements from Atom. Lets have a clean spec well defined spec.
When enough people are left outside of the core, then I am sure talk of extensions will finally get to be serious.
Henry Story
On 4 Feb 2005, at 09:29, Bob Wyman wrote:
We decided to support HeadInEntry. It doesn't make sense to back off
now. Deferring HeadInEntry to a non-core extension essentially kills it and
ensures that Atom use will provide virtually no advantage to anyone who is
building aggregated feeds.
