Aristotle Pagaltzis wrote: > Shades of SGML. No! No! Not that! :-)
He continues with: > ... many good points .... Basically, there are many really easy ways that one can handle streams of Atom entries. You could prepend an empty feed to the head of the stream, you could use "virtual" end-tags, you could just send entries and rely on the receiver to wrap them up as required, etc... But, since all of these are really easy and none of them really gets in the way of anything rational that I can imagine someone wanting to do, why not just default to doing it the way it is defined in the Atom spec? In that way, we don't have to create one more context-dependent distinction between formats. Complexity is reduced and we can avoid having to read yet-another-specification that looks very, very much like hundreds we've read before. If Atom provides all we need, lets not do something else unless there is a *very* good argument to do so. bob wyman