Mark Stahl wrote:
Sounds like there's no momentum for adding an at:deleted-since feature to
this draft, and that it's better added to a further on sync draft. (We
will end up doing something similar in the interim.) Any other opinions?
What is the exact specification text that you are proposing? I think if you
submitted the text, it would be easier to see if it belongs in the
at:deleted-entry spec. or a sync. spec. My guess is it cannot be described
adaquately without describing a complete synchronization protocol.
Are you guys (Google) going to propose an interoperable syncing protocol?
- Brian
