On 23 Feb 2005, at 08:53, Henry Story wrote:
On 23 Feb 2005, at 00:18, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Sorry that should have been "Paul Hoffman wrote":
My read of the mailing list is that people are simply looking at the model described in the document differently. Some folks actively want the model the way the document currently reads, other actively want the model to be different, and most don't care about the differences between those two.
That is a very diplomatic way of putting things :-) since we don't know what
you mean by the way the document currently reads.
There was an attempt to resolve the ambiguity of how many times an entry with
the same id can appear in a feed document. The resolution of this ambiguity in
favor of one model over the other at such a late stage in the game can seem
like an attempt by some to impose their reading of the spec.
I would be in favor of not resolving the ambiguity but of highlighting it
with text such as
[ whether more than one entry with the same id can appear in a feed document
has not yet been resolved ]
Bill de hÓra then responded:
[[
-1. That is of no little value to a user of the spec. Also, do read what I said earlier in this thread - I'm not looking to resolve ambiguity, I'm looking to specify what's going to be ambiguous.
]]
To which I reply:
This is getting to be a very subtle distinction, and I am having trouble following.
I am not trying to resolve ambiguity. The text above is looking to point out
in the text what is ambiguous.
The hope is that questions such as the ones you are asking in this thread,
and work on the protocol, will help clarify the ambiguity and perhaps resolve
it to everyone's satisfaction.
This would have the virtue of not taking sides in the debate and of not forcing one reading by default.
We can then move onto the protocol issue, which I think will force the clarification of what an Entry is, and thereby the arguments as to why one reading or the other should be preferred.
Henry Story
