Re: Feed Thread in Last Call

[James M Snell]

Robert Sayre wrote:
>[snip]
> 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

The exact same can be said of the argument that the use of extension
attributes is broken.  There's not a shred of spec text to back it up.

> and others want that to be true, they have an RFC to revise.
> 

The spec is clear.  Extension attributes are allowed by the spec.
Implementations that do not support extension attributes are choosing
not to support a feature allowed by the spec.  Whether that makes those
implementations "broken" or not is debatable.  Personally, I don't see
them as "broken", I just see them as extremely short-sighted.

- James