Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 5/16/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> A few of the individuals on the WG had a problem with the placement of
>> the attributes due to various limitations of a few existing Atom 1.0
>> implementations.
>
> Right, and you're breaking them because...? You haven't coherently
> explained your reason for moving them back. After all, you agreed with
> the WG and updated the document, but now you've moved them back for
> unexplained reasons and pointed at deployments.
>
Very simple reasons: the attributes are easier to implement, are allowed
by RFC4287 and are being used in real deployments. That's more than
enough justification for me.
I agreed in principle with the arguments presented by David and
Aristotle; Accordingly, I drafted up an alternative; Implemented the
alternative; Compared the two implementations and the pros/cons of each;
Discussed those on the mailing list; and decided in the end that the
risk/benefit weighed in favor of the attributes.
After testing a number of Atom implementations, I have yet to find one
that is "broken" as a result of using the attributes.
- James
