At 11:59 PM -0400 4/3/05, Robert Sayre wrote:
If none of them are MUST, there is no social recourse when tracking down problems or seeking social understanding. Where did this feed come from? Who makes alternates? What's this all about?
Good, we're making progress. You're aiming at the "to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm" part of 2119.
I'm fine with making one of them a MUST for that reason. atom:id seems like the one that would most help tracking down problems, yes?
At 4:13 PM -0700 4/3/05, Tim Bray wrote:
I think <link rel="self"> is a SHOULD, to address auto-subscriptions, one of the current #1 RSS pain points, perceived by users as a failure to interoperate. -Tim
Sounds good to me.
At 2:25 PM +1000 4/4/05, Eric Scheid wrote:
ps. I think it would be prudent to put the reason why something is a SHOULD in the spec itself.
+1. There is ample evidence in the IETF that, when you don't do that, people will guess wrong about a year after the spec comes out.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
