Tim Bray wrote:
> [snip]
> We think that APP as specified allows very good interoperability for
> basic Web-centric publish/edit operations with low overhead, and low
> demands for complexity in the client and sever implementations. Adding
> the requirement for client-side extensibility would reduce the number of
> server implementations that would be able to advertise conformance with
> APP, even though they are perfectly capable of the highly-useful
> function possible under APP as of the current draft.
>
+1
>> (It remains easy for servers to add extensions to Atom feeds and
>> entries using prescribed mechanisms like adding new elements in custom
>> namespaces. )
>
> Right. Phrased another way, the APP is highly extensible; but the
> current version requires co-operation from both client and server. This
> seems reasonable to me.
>
+1
>> It may be that I'm just having trouble accepting that the WG fully
>> understands this and has still come to consensus that this is a great
>> way to proceed. Is that the case?
>
> Sort of. Frankly, there seems to have been very little hunger for
> unilateral client-side extension, and a very strong aversion from the
> server-side people to accepting the round-trip-any-XML requirement.
>
>From this implementors point of view client-side extension simply is not
a requirement.
- James
