Walter Underwood wrote:
--On February 7, 2005 1:06:49 PM -0500 Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul Hoffman wrote:
+1. It is a simple clarification that shows the intention without restricting anyone.
+1. Agree in full.
-1. I don't see the benefit. Clients MAY re-order them, but that doesn't mean they MUST ignore the order. The publisher may prefer an order which cannot be expressed in the attributes. The Macintouch and BBC New feeds cited before are good examples.
I'm +1 on the Pace as written. I'd be equally +1 on a modifed Pace where "SHOULD NOT" was used in place of "MUST NOT".
- Sam Ruby
