Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 30/06/2005, at 1:41 PM, James M Snell wrote:
The value is that I would really like to see a common and consistent
way of attaching behavioral semantics to the feed rather than each
individual vendor / spec defining their own app and impl specific
methods. It could be done without IANA support, of course, but it's
just annoying to see relatively similar tasks done in completely
different ways.
I totally agree that we should have neutral, non-vendor-specific
semantics defined. I just don't see how having this container
defined, along with the IANA registry, helps; if it was the intent of
the WG to forbid all vendor-specific mechanisms, we should have
disallowed all extensions except for those that are in an IANA
registry (for example).
That's an extreme, of course, but it points out that Atom -- and RSS,
for that matter -- is still in the period of its lifetime where
vendors and individuals have to experiment to figure out what's
valuable, and let the market sort out what becomes commonly deployed.
It's not pretty, but it works pretty well in the long run.
<Sigh> Why can't technology work well AND be pretty.
- James
