Rogers Cadenhead wrote: > --- Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Is there some aspect of the WHAT-WG document that >> bothers you? > > Not yet, aside from the notion that they've got an > incredibly ambitious goal -- spec the next > HTML/XHTML/DOM -- and I have no idea how to gauge the > likelihood they'll achieve it. Or whether they'll > respect current autodiscovery functionality in MSIE 7 > and Firefox 2.0. > >> Why not provide feedback there? > > I will if that's where autodiscovery goes. > > But I'm +1 on PaceMakeAutodiscoveryInformational. > Seems like a good idea to tell Atom publishers how to > support autodiscovered feeds.
Same here. If as James suggested the proposal is merely informational then there will be little harm done while providing something useful enough to be actually used. I have no will to wait and see whether or not the WHATWG recommendation will eventually be applied. If we have to wait for one or two years to get their final document then I don't see how an informational spec could harm the community while waiting. Besides the fact that browsers are the primary target is not relevant to me. Atom is more than just a feed to subscribe to to get the latest news from a website. We don't have the background to understand how Atom thanks to APP will evolve in the field. +1 to the pace. - Sylvain
