On 6/1/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Any pace that claims to be clarifying this part of the spec needs to > explain where "John Doe" materialized from. I've mentioned this at least > once before, and indicated it's probably acquired in a stateful/out of > protocol manner in the implementations that haven't been bitten by it. > we have patched atom:title but not atom:author (or atom:summary for > meeja resources). I'd like to see this point addressed. > The pace includes the start of such a description;
...
If this is not adequate, can you suggest alternative spec text that would be?
So, throw the hot potato, eh? Here's an idea. How about speaking the truth instead of engaging in intellectually dishonest handwaving? It goes something like this: RFC4287 contains bogus co-constraints. It's not clear exactly /how/ they're bogus, but there's definitely something stinky there. Perhaps we'll know more in six months or a year. Bad solutions to the problem include spawing an a cottage industry of "profiles", including per-message format constraints in the protocol spec, link rel="atrocious-kludge", and binary "metadata". The description in the pace is bs. I don't happen to care if you change it, but Bill is right, and he seems to care. -- Robert Sayre "I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."
