Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 09/01/2008, at 5:19 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
Tatsuya Noyori wrote:
I like Atom syntax. And I think analogy is important. So I
hope that the tombstones is similar in syntax to Atom
syndication format.
I agree.
+1
Having a different syntactic style forces people to re-learn it, acting
as a barrier to entry and giving them another chance to mess it up. When
someone has gone to the trouble of knowing where to put an ID in an Atom
entry, for example, it seems strange to make them re-learn where to put
it in a tombstone.
And yet the syntax that Tatsuya Noyori suggested, Brian agreed with, and
you +1ed, didn't actually use an atom:id - the id was in the tombstone
namespace. Getting that confused, seems to me a far more likely problem.
I'll admit that the issue could be argued either way, but I still think the
benefits of using attributes outweigh any advantage that might be gained by
having a partially shared syntax with RFC4287.
Regards
James
