Hmmm... yeah, thats a good point. The optimizations part wouldn't represent this (e.g. thr:count -- although this doesn't reflect on the Atom spec) but beyond that there wouldn't be much point. You folks HAVE done a incredibly complete job with the spec, so if there was interest it would only be artificial.
Is an optimizations research area something that might be doable beyond the notion of fixing or adding whats not already there, and instead focused on things like thr:count where its nice to have, but not mandatory, yet a consolidated effort would make sense?
On 5/4/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* M. David Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-04 23:30]:
> Or is something like this simply inviting WAY TOO MANY little
> things to find justification to plug up the collective inbox of
> the community members?
I don't know. So far during extension development discussions,
only the missing extensibility for links has stuck out as a real
sore point in RFC 4287. Other than that, the spec has stood up
very well with only a few minor errata reported here and there.
At least, that's my impression; I don't know what others think,
of course.
Frankly, I would hope there won't be much interest – cause if
there is, what else would that mean than that we did a shoddy
job? :-)
Regards,
--
Aristotle Pagaltzis // < http://plasmasturm.org/>
--
<M:D/>
M. David Peterson
http://www.xsltblog.com/
