Re: PaceEntryMediatype

[Sylvain Hellegouarch <sh@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Algermissen wrote:
> 
> 
> On Dec 6, 2006, at 11:44 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> 
>>
>> I certainly hope you're kidding about dropping entry docs.
> 
> Sure, yes. But your wording IMHO seemed to imply that what feed readers
> do should guide a decision. So, given they are not interested in the
> entries, dropping them is not too farfetched, is it?
> 
> 
>> Let's just
>> label 'em differently and move on.
>>
> 
> I still do not see the use cases justifying a new media type - it might
> be the right thing to do but for the time being it looks like a workaround.

Considering you seem to only discuss their value from a feed reader
point of view, I'm not surprised you don't see the use for at least
minting the current media-type, let alone an entirely new one.

I think at this stage having further discussion won't help anymore and I
would like the WG-chairmans and editors to tell us what they think about
this issue because we aren't going anywhere right now.

- Sylvain

> 
> Jan
> 
> 
>> - James
>>
>> Jan Algermissen wrote:
>>>
>>> On Dec 6, 2006, at 11:30 PM, James M Snell wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jan Algermissen wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>> So they should be fixed, should they not? They seem to only have
>>>>> implemented half a media type.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The half they're interested in.  Why aren't they interested in the
>>>> other
>>>> half?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ha! Forget about the media type - let's drop entry documents.
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>>>
>>>> - James
>>>
>>>
>>