* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-02 03:50]: > especially when changes requested by the community are met with > hostility and channel flooding.
Did this happen in more cases than the one I’m aware of? You know, the one where James eventually caved on both distinct points anyway? > When I read terms like "more standard" wrt the feed thread > extension, it makes me cringe. There are obvious reasons why that one is better than the rag-tag group of RSS extensions required to duplicate even a limited set of its use cases. We’ve had that discussion in other venues. (If you do require a blow-by-blow posted here, I can put together a summary for the WG.) > By my count, James has 11 drafts in the system, all > Atom-related. Many of them are copies of existing RSS > extensions. It doesn't seem appropriate to issue competing > versions of various extensions from Microsoft, Yahoo et al. and > claim they are products of community consensus, Granted, but don’t lump them all together. Some of them *are* products of community consensus; the Thread extension in particular got a lot of churn (more than the others by a wide margin; ~250 posts on this list by my last count, aside from a dozen weblog threads or so). At least one or two others received some attention as well (the Licence extension I think? I didn’t pay much attention to those). It appears that it would be most productive if you simply express any specific concerns you have about particular drafts and their overlap with particular RSS extensions, instead of going for an ad hominem against James. It worked for David Powell; his concerns about technical flaws in the Thread extension convinced James to revise the draft, where your vociferous unsubstantiated objections had previously failed. In any case I’m puzzled why you’d start ringing alarm bells just now. None of these I-Ds are new; they’re all at least several months old and some have been through a half-dozen revisions and corresponding announcements. How did they escape your notice for so long? If they did not, why have they only become a problem now? > for that excludes the IETF from defining the problem. How do you mean? (Question to be taken at face value. I honestly am not sure what you mean here.) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
