Re: issue: collection typing

[Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> --- Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Often, your arguments come off as arguments against
> > the goals of the WG. 
>
>
> Considering I haven't participated in this working
> group this year I'm not sure exactly where this is
> coming from... 

OK, let's not go there. :)

> Even if MSN Spaces were to adopt the Atom API it would
> be highly unlikely we would replace our RSS feeds with
> Atom feeds. 

World domination isn't in our charter, AFAIK.


> This is functionality that is literally being used by
> millions of people so it seems somewhat confusing to
> me that one would suggest that an API that plans to
> position itself as the weblogging API for the Web
> would ignore this trend. 

This is a strong argument. Dare is suggesting that omitting something 
because it might be crufty for some applications could be harmful. I 
think it's pretty obvious which side of the Basic/Advanced divide this 
falls on. For Dare and others that may not have been following closely 
for the past few months: The WG agreed to split the protocol draft in 
two parts: Basic and "Administration", with the idea that the Basic 
draft would cover something approximating the current draft. See 
PaceTwoProtocolDrafts.

Robert Sayre