* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-02 05:25]: > 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.
Such as? > >> 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. There is proof that the existing patchwork of RSS extensions is insufficient. That is enough to convince me that an extension which addresses their holes is useful. If addressing holes in existing standards was unnecessary, then RSS is good enough and the Atom was a giant waste of time. > 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. That is just one case. I agree that the current setup in the FTE is less than pretty, and I’d like it to change; but I see what motivated the form of the provided features and so I consider them incomplete rather than completely misguided. > This is limited in theory, but in practice, such elements are > so easy to deploy, they prove valuable. I agree with that. (See my proposition elsewhere, which would have provided this as a special case; it does bother me that the revision that was just published does not provide for this.) > >> 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... You mean there should be a formal agreed-on statement of what an I-D is supposed to achieve before the process starts? If that is what you mean: yes, that is definitely a fine idea. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
