Re: Feed Thread Draft Updated

["Robert Sayre" <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx>]

> James M Snell wrote:
>> Maybe, but given that WG messed up in not making the link element
>> formally extensible, it's not likely to be pretty.

Nice one.

> > a. Status quo. Leave things the way they are in the current draft.

-1.

James M Snell wrote:
> None of the implementors I'm aware of are currently making use of
> multiple replies link relations

It doesn't work in the Windows Feed API, client implementors haven't
been too excited about it, and it's not based on existing practice. I
don't really have a problem parsing it, I just don't know what I would
do with a group of those figures, or why it's even needed.

>
> > b. Drop thr:count and thr:when from the spec.

+ 0.5. thr:when seems pretty useless.

>
> > d. Create a supplemental extension element

+1.

Robert Sayre