James M Snell wrote:
I think I've covered the reasons why I think atom:entry is inappropriate
well enough that there's no reason to go back into it. If you haven't
yet had the time to go back through the thread (which would be
understandable since it's a pretty long thread), I would encourage you
to go back and read the points I've made thus far.
I already went through the thread.
cheers
Bill
- James
Bill de hOra wrote:
[snip]
It's still cruft.
Apologies tho'; I know I came to this thread late, but I'm not seeing
the reason to introduce a new type (aka 'tombstone'), insofar as adding
a new type is a big deal.
cheers
Bill
