On 5/1/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* 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?
Yes.
> 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...
Disagree. There is no proof of that.
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.
I didn't go for an ad hominem. That would be something like "the feed draft is bad because James wrote it". I disagree with many decisions in the draft, but that is because I think they are misguided, not because I dislike the person who wrote them. For instance, every other threading extension uses a simple element with a number to represent the number of responses. This is limited in theory, but in practice, such elements are so easy to deploy, they prove valuable. In fact, a few WG members used my unauthorized version of the feed thread extension to track my comments.
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.
Nonsense. Sylvain pointed out that he was being pushy and ignorant, and only then did he changed it. I think you're confusing James' rhetoric with reality. A silly mistake. His rhetoric is pretty clumsy.
In any case I'm puzzled why you'd start ringing alarm bells just now.
I-Ds by themselves are not an issue.Of course, actual change control is, and documents pushed through the process without problem-definition in the IETF are much more prone to abuse. It really does bother me that these documents are being pushed through at the same level as the Atom draft itself, and I don't think I need to apologize for my timing. Anyway, I don't see how the timing of my email is not relevant to the topic at hand. Besides, I was b-b-b-banned during lots of it, but I've getting better at being courteous to the ethically-challenged.
> 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.)
Defining the charter, etc, etc. It's a good thing to do. Are there any WG members left who were around at that phase? I joined right around then... -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
