Tim Bray wrote:
You are implying that would be somehow inappropriate or unsportsmanlike. It isn't. If there is consensus, such a challenge would be squashed rather quickly, don't you think?
Just for the record, I strongly agree that Atom entries should be required to include (to use Sam's words) a textual non-remote component.
In the words of your co-chair, this isn't a negotiating game.
Accessibility is a non-starter absent expert opinion or substantially similar formats. Frankly, the notion that remote content constitutes an accessibility concern is absurd. Might as well write off the whole Web.
What harm is our use of RFC2119 imperatives trying to prevent? Applying Dan Gillmor's definition of stupid[0] is a textbook case of trying "to impose a particular method on implementors".
Robert Sayre
[0] http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg00555.html
