A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-10-12 17:15]:
>> I do, however, believe that keeping at least one of the mailing
>> lists active would be an extremely good idea
>
> Per Paul’s message that was going to be the case anyhow.
>
Doh! Missed that completely!
>> There definitely might be some sense in chartering an Atom
>> Extensions WG that can look at various things like the Features
>> draft.
>
> Instituting such a WG would mean a concerted effort to produce a
> particular spec. At the time being, most extensions are
> interesting to few people only, and even for those with broader
> appeal, the interested folks are divided along too many lines,
> not to mention that implementation experience is generally
> limited as yet.
>
> So it seems to me that setting up an Atom Extensions WG would be
> premature at this time. Any work on extensions could be conducted
> via the mailing list, which will remain around after all, and
> invidual submissions.
Yep, I can live with that.
- James
>
> Regards,
