It certainly gives the impression that there's a preference; it's like
saying The language of the feed SHOULD be English; there are lots of
options, and we don't require one, but it does call one out.
Why is this a normative requirement, and what does adding this sentence
bring to the spec?
Baking this as a normative requirement -- even a SHOULD -- into a
standards-track RFC is a bad idea.
These formats are not the only interoperable formats on the planet, and
in fact they all have interop problems to some degree.
In five years, this requirement isn't going to make any sense.
On Feb 3, 2005, at 8:17 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
This specification describes Atom's XML markup vocabulary.
Markup from
other vocabularies (foreign markup) can be used in Atom in
a variety of
ways. Text Constructs may contain foreign markup which SHOULD
be HTML or
and an
OWL ontology. This would
be helpful and very useful. PaceExtendingAtom as it currently is stated
is restrictive without
being useful.
Henry Story
On 13 Jan 2005, at 19:27, Tim Bray wrote:
+1
I wrote it and I still think it's necessary as a bare-minimum measure.
-Tim
were defined by
something similar to the RELAX NG description we currently have and an
OWL ontology. This would
be helpful and very useful. PaceExtendingAtom as it currently is stated
is restrictive without
being useful.
How is PaceExtendingAtom restrictive? It only spells out a Must Ignore
is PaceExtendingAtom restrictive? It only spells out a Must Ignore
policy and nothing else. Am I missing something?
-joe
If there were no further discussion: This is the result of a lot of
discussion around Must Ignore and has in various drafts received lots
of friendly remarks and suggestions for improvement, which have been
incorporated. Absent some convincing -1s, it probably goes in. -Tim
+1 for making Atom a 'Must Ignore' language.
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:46 -0800, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there were no further discussion: This is the result of a lot of
discussion around Must Ignore and has in various drafts received lots
of friendly remarks and suggestions
+1
I wrote it and I still think it's necessary as a bare-minimum measure.
-Tim
