On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 10:05:08 -0800, David Orchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A reason why I'm a fan of the mustUnderstand rule is that it enables
> parties to make incompatible changes, in some situations considered a
> "major" revision.
>
> Without an mU rule, the only way that incompatible changes can be made
> is through a revision of the Atom namespace and/or version, depending on
> how we decide to do component version identification.
>
> Another way of looking at this is that if you don't really want an Atom
> NG format, then mU is a way of allowing new "versions" to exist.
>
> Here's a couple opposite scenarios for you:
> 1. Atom does not have mU. Somebody comes up with a really really good
> mandatory extension. The only way to get this feature in is to Rev Atom
> to Atom next namespace (or V 2.0)
For the addition of a new *mandatory* extension I think
a version 2.0 is a perfectly reasonable solution.
> 2. Atom has mU. Nobody in the entire community comes up with a really
> really good mandatory extension. Nobody uses mU and Atom
> namespace/version also never gets created.
Yet a lot of software on the client side gets written to support
such a change. That's not much of a feature/benefit trade off.
>
> Seems like the safe place to be is to have mU, because without it you
> are taking a gamble you don't need to. And if you are right that nobody
> will use mU, then there won't be any complications in atom format
> instances because, well, nobody will use it..
>
> I agree that spending time/effort on something that might not get used
> seems like craziness, but the problem is that it's impossible to predict
> the future, even as smart as all the Atom folks are.
Sure, and if we run into a problem we get all these smart
people back together to produce a 2.0 spec.
> Previous versions
> of RSS seem to validate my belief about being cautious on our
> omniscience.
Gettting back to that point about RSS, and to repeat one of my
questions: Can you present a single instance in the history
of RSS (any version) where a problem occured that could have been fixed
with a mustUnderstand element?
Thanks,
-joe
--
Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
