Oh, and I forgot to say that the folks who have already commented in favor of the id-to-ref rename already have their votes counted ;-)
And yes, Dave, I'm counting your comments regarding #2 as a +1.. - James James M Snell wrote: >[snip] > So, with that, let me go ahead and open it up to a vote with the caveat > that votes from folks with concrete plans to implement the spec will > carry more weight so I'd appreciate a heads up. > > 1. Do I change <in-reply-to id="..." /> to <in-reply-to ref="..." /> ? > > and.. to address David's concerns about extending atom:link... > > 2. Do I change thr:count and thr:when to extension elements instead of > attributes on atom:link? > > None of the implementors I'm aware of are currently making use of > multiple replies link relations on an entry so changing #2 likely > wouldn't cause too many headaches. > > My apologies if I came across a little too heavy handed on this. That > was most definitely *not* the intention. > > - James > >
