On 5/30/06, Lisa Dusseault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At the end of the day, the marketplace will work within the > constraints of what 4287 allows; my feeling is that there are going > to be a ton of extensions that will attach unforeseen metadata at > arbitrary points with Atom documents, and implementations that fail > to store these and make them retrievable will quickly be seen as > broken. -Tim I find this to be a pretty compelling argument.
I don't find Tim's argument particularly compelling. It's crystal ball stuff, and implementations are free to ignore *any* part of an Atom document. In this case, it's another case of a WG member claiming something is broken without a shred of spec text to back it up. If Tim and others want that to be true, they have an RFC to revise. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
