Robert Sayre wrote:
+1 [1]. Specifically, I think that we can fulfill the charter's 'support for archives' requirement [2] with the existing syntax plus the facilities provided by the protocol. How an archive is stored is something I'd be happy leaving to 'archiver' implementations in much the same way we leave such details to 'aggregator' implementations. I can certainly see value in standardizing document formats for archivers to allow interoperability; but I don't think the benefit is worth the cost, and I don't think the charter requires it.
Walter Underwood wrote:
I agree, but I would put it another way. The charter requires support for archives, but we don't have a clear model for those. Without a model, we can't spec syntax.
We have feed documents. A series of feed documents makes an archive. I don't see why we need atom:archive after all.
Robert Sayre
-John
[1] Though I actually disagree that just a series of feed documents makes an archive -- what about non-entry resources? Where are my cat pictures?
[2] At least for the types of archives I think are important.
