Jan Algermissen wrote: > > > On Dec 6, 2006, at 11:44 PM, James M Snell wrote: > >> >> I certainly hope you're kidding about dropping entry docs. > > Sure, yes. But your wording IMHO seemed to imply that what feed readers > do should guide a decision. So, given they are not interested in the > entries, dropping them is not too farfetched, is it? > > >> Let's just >> label 'em differently and move on. >> > > I still do not see the use cases justifying a new media type - it might > be the right thing to do but for the time being it looks like a workaround.
Considering you seem to only discuss their value from a feed reader point of view, I'm not surprised you don't see the use for at least minting the current media-type, let alone an entirely new one. I think at this stage having further discussion won't help anymore and I would like the WG-chairmans and editors to tell us what they think about this issue because we aren't going anywhere right now. - Sylvain > > Jan > > >> - James >> >> Jan Algermissen wrote: >>> >>> On Dec 6, 2006, at 11:30 PM, James M Snell wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Jan Algermissen wrote: >>>>> [snip] >>>>> So they should be fixed, should they not? They seem to only have >>>>> implemented half a media type. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The half they're interested in. Why aren't they interested in the >>>> other >>>> half? >>> >>> >>> Ha! Forget about the media type - let's drop entry documents. >>> >>> Jan >>> >>>> >>>> - James >>> >>> >>
