* Bill de hOra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-04 03:55]: > A. Pagaltzis wrote: > >I think given the above background you'll agree that the > >intent of the document is pretty coherent. > > I couldn't tell whether new Atom extensions are foreign markup, > or something else to be dealt with under wrt being > a "forward-compatible" friendly consumer. It's kind of > circular.
That’s what I meant. The intent is well thought-out and sharply defined (in the mathematical sense), but it’s specification in the document is not very explicit. It could stand to be clarified a bit so that people don’t have to ask on the list to have someone from the old boys club educate them before they know how to read the spec. Since you’re fresh from newly reading that section, how would it have had to read in order to convey its meaning clearly? * Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-10-04 04:20]: > Bill, please show us a bug? Bugs concerning forward compatibility are unlikely to surface prior to Atom getting revised in some form. It’d be good if the spec is clear enough that implementations have a chance to react interoperably in the eventuality of such revisions. It’s not some huge roadblocking issue, but neither is it without merit. If it can be removed with an extra sentence in the spec and a tweak to another and the opportunity is there, that seems like a worthwhile small win to me. Polish shows in the details. > I don't think defining terms until we've got a good subset of > an English dictionary will make the format more interoperable. Noone said anything about defining new terms. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
