* Karl Dubost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-24 20:05]: > > > It means that all XSLTs, Web hosting services, etc can NOT > > > claim conformance to Atom. :) > > > > Yes they can. > > no for the reason I gave and no because there's no way to claim > conformance to the spec. They are plenty marketing department > which will claim conformance to something even if they have a > bad support of it :) Which has after implications in the world > of markets, business offering and certifications which leads > to quagmires.
If something produces documents that conform to the rules set out for Atom Documents in the Atom Format specification, then it produces Atom Documents. Are you suggesting that it makes sense to state conformance in any other terms? If so, why? I *could* see an argument for defining when an Atom Processor is conformant; after all, interpreting a document is more ambiguous job than generating one, and many desktop aggregators have poor support for the full link model, f.ex. Your complaints seem to hinge on a belief that the scope of the specification should extend further than to specify exactly what a document means. My understanding is that the WG has decided that the format specification is to say exactly what the bits on the wire mean, but not what how anyone should generate them or what anyone should do with them once they have received them. So it seems to me that your complaint is outside the scope of the specification, and, indeed, this WG. Regards, -- Aristotle
