+1 Agree with the change, not occurrence of ATOM in spec now. Thanks, Steve Speicher IBM Rational Software OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net
"Oslc-Recon" <[email protected]> wrote on 02/26/2013 04:34:15 PM: > From: Tuan Dang/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > To: [email protected] > Date: 02/26/2013 04:36 PM > Subject: Re: [Oslc-recon] Comments on Recon spec > Sent by: "Oslc-Recon" <[email protected]> > > >5) #ResourceFormats > >Just an observation (I know many other specs doe this as well) I wonder why > we say anything about atom+xml anymore, do you really expect it? It would > seem like we >should instead have the media type for JSON or more JSON considerations. > > > >So I'd strike the atom+xml bullet and "Atom Syndication Format XML", unless > you have some hint of a need. > > No one in the workgroup has voiced interest or need for Atom support. And no > implementer is using this currently. > I've taken this out of the spec. We'll consider again when we have a > scenario that calls for it. > > Thanks ! T > > Tuan Dang > Tivoli OSLC governance, OSLC Reconciliation workgroup lead, Tivoli Common Data Model > Internet: [email protected] > phone: (919) 224-1242 T/L 687-1242_______________________________________________ > Oslc-Recon mailing list > [email protected] > http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-recon_open-services.net
