Just wanted to follow through on this for everyone. Given that there
are vendors getting ready to ship code based on the current rev of the
spec, I'm *not* going to rename the "id" attribute to "ref". Yes, I
know that "id" is confusing to some folks, but we're just talking the
name of a single attribute and not a critical functional bug. From this
point forward, only critical spec bugs will be fixed and I will be
submitting the spec for consideration as a standards track RFC in the
not too distant future.
- James
First of all thanks for the follow-up, this is appreciated. Now I do
understand your motivation at keeping the name of the attribute and I
also believe people that will be reading such feed won't make the
mistake. Fir enough. It's not that a big deal... or is it?
I do find a bit hard to swallow though the "implemantators do it that
way so let's not update the RFC" which is still a draft, even if an
advanced one. I simply wonder what is worse, to annoy a few vendors now
or a wider audience in the future.
Anyway, so be it. I won't argue and I leave you the final word on this
one ;)
- Sylvain
