Sam Ruby wrote:
Hi Roger! Yes, I recall you constructively participating in when this was discussed previously, and consensus was declared on the issue by the co-chairs:
Ah, a process argument. If the chairs consider this discussion out of order, they can declare it so. I will respect that.
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg06649.html
Permit me to quote you:
My no-content feeds are distributing such limited info
that there's really no need for anything more than RSS. Trying to force that
kind of thing to work with Atom nets the user nothing (the RSS and Atom
versions would be effectively identical), and blunts Atom's purpose (clearer
specification) in the process.
That's not really true, isn't it? You see, an Atom feed would be required to have an id, a date, a link, and a title. Which RSS dialect can say that?
Robert Sayre
