On 5/2/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Such as?
Not appropriate for on-list discussion, sorry.
> >> 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 don't I follow your reasoning. We have namespaces so vendors can create whatever they might like, without involving the standards organization. I fail to see the point in rubber-stamping such things.
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.
And WG chairs, etc, etc. -- Robert Sayre