Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/16/05, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Too terse - I don't understand why you're asking this. But if you really think that we allow everything we don't ban, we should say that somewhere in the spec.
hmm. I could write that Pace if you want, but maybe it would be more productive to explain why you find my interpretation "psychotic".
Because it's an interpretation that cares not for others.
I could ask if you could maybe explain why that was more a productive direction, but isn't this getting silly now?
Maybe you could point to some spec text to back up your opinion.
Postel's law.
MarkN seems to think its only this or other IETF working groups that can extend the Atom namespace. I don't see anything in the spec about that.
Let's agree I made an error of judgement in my characterisation and call your interpretation something neutral instead - "interpretation-x". As I've withdrawn 'psychotic' I think it's reasonable to say we can stop quibbling and move on. The point remains - if you think interpretation-x is valid way of systematically evaluating the spec, then there is room to discuss whether we should make mention of it. Will you address now whether we should mention or approve that interpretation in the spec?
cheers Bill
