On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 00:18:37 +0000, Bill de h�ra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Look, the point is this. Those arguing from the RDF side of the house do [not] > mean what you mean by extensible. Furthermore, what is meant there by > extensible hasn't been demonstrated (in my mind) as a requirement for > Atom. Thus, in some respects we're having a pointless discussion. One > side or the other is going to have to give up possession of the term > extensible, or we're going to continue to watch people talk past each > other. Once you appreciate that we are talking about two different > things, execution of the work in hand will become simpler. I'd be more than happy to use a different term for the XML-extensibility-like thing which isn't modularity or robustness but closer to the dictionary definition. Extendibility perhaps? Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
