On 4/4/05 1:32 PM, "Paul Hoffman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not to pick on Eric; others have said things along the lines of:
no offence taken.
> This isn't a negotiating game. We have to have technical reasons for
> our assigning requirements levels.
I can't think of any MUST reasons for [EMAIL PROTECTED]'self'] or
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'alternate'].
For atom:id I can see how being able to clearly and unambiguously identify a
feed would help us avoid requesting feeds from different URIs only to get
the same information (that falls under "avoiding retransmission", right?).
I can think of only one SHOULD reason for [EMAIL PROTECTED]'self'], which is the
auto-subscribe interoperability problem with browsers. *
hmmm..
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'alternate'] = MAY
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'self'] = SHOULD
id = SHOULD
e.
ps. I think it would be prudent to put the reason why something is a SHOULD
in the spec itself.
pps. I'm inclined to go the same way with atom:entry/atom:link's
