--On Thursday, November 04, 2004 10:40:04 AM -0800 "Paul Hoffman / IMC" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Most people seem to like the idea of an Atom error reporting facility, although some don't because they think it will never get used.
I object for a different reason.
It seems to me that it is trying to enable a social pressure on feeds that don't meet the standard. I think this is new ground for a protocol standard. Usually, implementation validation is a separate phase, and not part of normal operation.
I know we are all really tired of busted HTML and XML, but this doesn't seem like it solves the problem. Getting rid of bad feeds requires publicising them, not telling the publisher (who might not care).
It is important to be able to figure out the feed software and version, so we can say the AtomBrainCreature 13.1 is busted and get the word out. But that requires notifying the implementor, not the publisher.
wunder -- Walter Underwood Principal Architect Verity Ultraseek
