"yeah what Bob said"
I'm not sure it is ideal, but it seems the closest to consensus we're
ever going to get.
+1
On Dec 14, 2006, at 7:08 AM, Rogers Cadenhead wrote:
--- Bob Wyman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) Define ;type=feed and ;type=entry as optional
parameters. (i.e. get them
defined, registered, and "ready to use.")
2) Leave RFC4287 unchanged. i.e. do NOT re-define
"application/atom-xml"
3) New specifications MAY require that ;type=entry
be used. (Note: Just
because ;type=entry is used DOES NOT imply that
;type=feed must also be
used....)
+1 on this approach. RFC4287 is a powerful argument in
Atom's favor. Chip away at that spec and we're going
to start hearing from Mr. Safe again.
