On 5/30/06, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote: >[snip] > document. In this case, it's another case of a WG member claiming > something is broken without a shred of spec text to back it up. If Tim The exact same can be said of the argument that the use of extension attributes is broken. There's not a shred of spec text to back it up.
I didn't say the use of extension attributes is broken. I said your extension has no reason to use them, remember? You never gave a technical reason for the change between last call and the previous version.
Personally, I don't see them as "broken", I just see them as extremely short-sighted.
That's how I see your extension. Hey, maybe you could do RFC4287bis as an individual submission! -- Robert Sayre
