Hmmm... while your opinion is definitely noted, what you personally think it means doesn't really matter in this case. I could be misreading things, but per BCP92, it's actually up to the AD and IESG to decide whether or not it is appropriate for an individual submission to update Atom in this way, especially given that RFC 4287 does not define what a "forwards compatible revision" is or how such revisions are defined.
It would likely be good to defer to Lisa's judgement on this point. - James Bill de hOra wrote: > > Mark Nottingham wrote: >> >> >> On 03/01/2008, at 3:33 PM, Bill de hOra wrote: >> >>>> >>>> 1. deleted-entry is now part of the Atom namespace >>> >>> "The Atom namespace is reserved for future forward-compatible >>> revisions of Atom." RFC4287, 6.2. >> >> >> ... which begs the question: does this qualify as such? > > Not if the word "revision" means what I think it does. > > cheers > Bill > >
