Graham wrote:
On 9 Nov 2004, at 1:57 pm, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:
Please list the specific "to be revisited" that you think are important for the core of Atom. If there is agreement in the WG, we will definitely work on them.
- The use of terminology is very poor. For example, several elements define whether they can "change" or not.
I agree with this one.
I'll admit to not being familiar with the process. Should the WG have taken a moment to fully vet their spec before asking the rest of the IETF to?
Though I'm guessing I'll disagree with Graham on many of the issues he raised, I agree that calling it done is premature.
My issues: PaceFieldingLinks PaceUpdatedDefinition Extensibility
Robert Sayre
