Re: Atom Entry Documents

[James M Snell]

+1 many times over.

Lisa Dusseault wrote:
> I don't feel that changing parts of RFC4287 is appropriate for an
> individual draft, particularly when the WG that did RFC4287 exists. 
> Certainly in order to update RFC4287 it would *have* to be Proposed
> Standard.  What constitutes an update or change (rather than an optional
> extension) might be open to some debate.
> [snip]