Subject: Re: Future of the Atom Features Draft

From: Paul Denning <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:04:25 -0400

At 10:50 AM 2008-05-15, James M Snell wrote:

>The Atom Features Draft has expired.  There was some interest expressed
>in having it moved forward but there was no solid consensus formed
>around the approach.  At this point, I don't really have the time or
>need to move it forward (the original need for which it was developed
>has evolved).

Can someone elaborate or point me to something to explain the 
original need and what it has evolved to?

Paul

>  If anyone else feels that it is an important thing to
>move forward, I will gladly hand over the xml of the source doc and will
>offer input however I can.
>
>- James
>
>
>

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 07:18:38 -0700

The core Atompub spec gives server implementations a broad set of 
options to choose from.  For instance, a server can choose to allow 
plain text title's in entries but not html or xhtml titles.  A server 
could choose to accept multiple categories or just a single category.  A 
server could choose to allow post-dated entries by allowing the client 
to include a future atom:published date. A server could choose to 
support any combination of extension elements or app:control elements to 
achieve a wide variety of behaviors.  The list goes on.  The original 
need for the features draft was to provide a mechanism for servers to 
communicate implementation choices to a client so that the client could 
do the right thing when interacting with the service.  The main 
challenge is that we were never really able to get consensus around the 
spec and I no longer have time to put much attention on it because of 
other, higher priority projects.

- James

Paul Denning wrote:
> Can someone elaborate or point me to something to explain the original 
> need and what it has evolved to?
> 
> Paul
>