Re: Consensus call on last raft of issues

[Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>]

On May 18, 2005, at 10:03 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:

> > > However, the absence of
> > > atom:summary is not an error and software MUST NOT fail to function
> > > correctly as a consequence of such an absence."
>
> We don't use the term 'software' in the draft. We discuss Atom
> Processors.

Oops, editorial issue, please maintain consistency in the draft.

>  If we were to define Atom Processors in opposition to an
> 'application', as in PaceDefineAtomProcessor, we could say a lot about
> applications. Note that one major goal of  PaceDefineAtomProcessor is
> to avoid making normative requirements on applications.

Yeah, in the case of XML, having the notion of an XML processor allowed 
us to describe some real important things that turned out to be hard to 
describe any other way.  My personal opinion is that the benefit of 
defining this in the Atom case does not justify the cost.   --Tim