attn: chairs, editors - [was WebDAV properties vs. Atom extension elements]

[Bill de hÓra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>]

[cc'd to atom-protocol]

Joe Gregorio:
> The idea of Atom was that the protocol used the syndication format as
> it's basis and thus  the extensibility of the syndication format would
> flow into the protocol.

Robert Sayre:
> It's not really the same issue at all. Of course you can put extensions in an
> entry element if you want. It has nothing to do with template wrapper, either.
> They don't need a wrapper any more than jpeg files do.
>
> If we're not going to use WebDAV resource defintions and methods, we should come
> up with technical arguments against reuse. I don't see any technical arguments.

Hi,

I'd like to draw the chairs' attention to this. It seems that the 
editors do not agree on what policy the protocol should take around 
reuse. That's not to pick on the chairs - I believe it reflects a 
general lack of consensus on the protocol list.

I've mentioned in the past the protocol work needs to define its policy 
on reuse. I believe it's necessary to make progress, otherwise we'll end 
up repeating the same arguments and restating the same positions as we 
step through the protocol features.

The syntax policy is clear enough. There are pro and cons to reusing 
from other specs. The most important matter imho at hand is maintaining 
a consistent protocol design - in that sense, being decisive probably 
counts more than agonizing over which policy.

cheers
Bill