Re: Proposed addition to Charter

[Dave Pawson <davep@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 10:11 21/03/2004, Danny Ayers wrote:

> I described some benefits to Atom and workload issues in my previous mail 
> [1]. I see no reason it should slow things down, the draft schema is 
> already mostly in place.
>
> Ok, the RDF mapping can appear outside of Atom, but I suspect it would be 
> poor politics to disenfranchise the RDF community even more, and further 
> marginalise Atom.

I think that's pushing it a bit Danny?

I tend to agree with the view that if the rdf version is a part of atom,
it will be taken as an equal alternative, whereas the plain text XML seems
the only 'normative' one by agreement.

How about the compromise position?
a link from the spec to the rdf version?

regards DaveP.