On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:04:47 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I had a talk about Atom and extensibility with Dave Orchard this
> morning, and he convinced me that there is benefit in a must-understand
> facility, but then educated me as to how complex it can be to
> implement.
>
> Based on that discussion, I have just published
> PaceMustUnderstandElement and PaceExtendingAtom. Note that the WG
> could reject PaceMustUnderstandElement and I think that
> PaceExtendingAtom would still work.
-1 on PaceMustUnderstandElement, for the following reasons:
1. There is a mustUnderstand feature in SOAP and has proved of no value.
You may attribute that to there being very few compliant implementations
in SOAP, but that only leads me to my next point:
2. This is added complexity to the format that few, if any, developers
will implement.
As you report Dave Orchard said, this is complex to implement.
3. The Pace, as written, doesn't specify any concrete benefit. There is
only theoretical benefit. What situation, current or in the past, in
syndication formats, would a mustUnderstand element have helped?
-joe
--
Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
