+1. What Tim said. - James
Tim Bray wrote: > On May 18, 2006, at 6:15 AM, David Powell wrote: > >> What I see as a problem is that reasonable implementations will not >> preserve Atom documents bit-for-bit, so they will need to explicitly >> support this draft if they don't want to corrupt data by dropping the >> thr:count attributes. By the letter of RFC4287 there is no problem >> with the draft, but practically there is something like a layering >> concern if an extension requires existing conformant implementations >> to be changed. > > At the end of the day, the marketplace will work within the constraints > of what 4287 allows; my feeling is that there are going to be a ton of > extensions that will attach unforeseen metadata at arbitrary points with > Atom documents, and implementations that fail to store these and make > them retrievable will quickly be seen as broken. -Tim > >> I notice that you said "implemented support" - that is fine for >> user-agents etc, but I don't believe that Atom infrastructure should >> be required to "implement support" for each new bit of content that >> publishers put into their feeds. > > On the contrary; I think that implementors who fail to deal with the > fact that people will be adding their own non-Atom stuff at every > conceivable place in an Atom feed are being very stupid, because this > will happen whatever we say. -Tim >
