Don't bake discrimination into the Atom core (was Re: Low-hanging fruit: multipart/alternative)

[Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:50:53 +0200, Asbjørn Ulsberg
<asbjorn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:46:58 -0700, Tim Bray <tbray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > Could someone take ownership of writing a three-line Pace saying
> >
> > "Nuke multipart/alternative for substantial cost and lack of a
> > compelling use-case."
> 
> Done: <url: http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceNukeMultipart>.

-1 on nuking it without an alternative proposal in place.  Atom's
current content model allows inline content of arbitrary type.  This
includes binary content (such as images) that are intrinsically
inaccessible to people with certain disabilities.  As long as Atom
allows for such inaccessible content to be published within a feed, I
absolutely positively insist -- with my last dying breath -- that we
have some mechanism for allowing publishers to include accessible
alternatives in the same feed, in a way that makes it clear that
*this* is an accessible alternative to *that*.

If you thought I was passionate about certain issues before, you ain't
seen nothin' yet.

-- 
Cheers,
-Mark