Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 10:48 PM -0500 2/2/05, Robert Sayre wrote:
Let's not. Let's differentiate "missing feature" from "critical missing feature".
Let's not. :-) Looking over the archives, there are certainly pockets of people in the WG who consider particular features that the WG has failed
We do not have a way of defining "critical missing feature"
Agree. However, we do have a way to identify things Atom sucks at. We can point at them and it will be obvious. These are not pie-in-the-sky scenarios, or semantic nirvana--they exist right now. If the WG decides these are out of bounds, so be it.
Use cases here: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg12963.html
1.) Atom sucks at web forums (e.g. slashdot)
2.) Atom sucks at LiveJournal
3.) Atom sucks at Netflix Top 100
4.) Atom sucks at blogs with comments or trackbacks
5.) Atom sucks at anything with a representation of its own and
collection membershipI understand that Atom will not be perfect, but it's important to make it very obvious when something is left out intentionally.
Robert Sayre
