[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why is alternate link a MUST?

To: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Why is alternate link a MUST?
From: Graham <dtcd@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 19:17:05 +0100
Cc: "Atom-Syntax Syntax'" <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <> <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx

On 4 Apr 2005, at 6:02 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:

This isn't a good time for conjecture. I don't think any of the arguments in favor have considered the support burden such feeds will create.

Basically none. I have no clue why you're raising this objection given all the other functionality we're adding or replacing. Links now being optional is right at the bottom of the list of changes people will have to make.

Graham

References:
- Re: Why is alternate link a MUST?
  - From: Antone Roundy
- Re: Why is alternate link a MUST?
  - From: Robert Sayre

Prev by Date: PaceFeedIdOrSelf
Previous by thread: Re: Why is alternate link a MUST?
Next by thread: Re: Why is alternate link a MUST?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread