A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-02 05:25]: >> On 5/1/06, A. Pagaltzis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> * Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-02 03:50]: >>>> especially when changes requested by the community are met >>>> with hostility and channel flooding. >>> Did this happen in more cases than the one I'm aware of? >> Yes. > > Such as? >
Aristotle, I appreciate the intention, but please don't bother. It is painfully clear that Robert has no intention of adding anything of any real value to the discussion. As far as FTE is concerned, please understand that I am trying to find the best way of accommodating a mix between "The simplest thing that could possibly work" with "The way things likely ought to work". I consider MSFT's decision to not preserve unknown foreign content to be extremely shortsighted. To contrast, in my implementation, supporting thr:when and thr:count as attributes on link requires no additional code, I can simply link.getAttribute(whenQname) and get the info I need. With the thr:replies element, to do it properly, I have to create a new extension element, create a factory, register the extension with the parser, etc. Adding in the difficulties inherent in matching equivalent href values between the atom:link and thr:replies element means that I'm having to do a whole lot more work than what is required with the attribute approach. So much, in fact, that I'm fairly certain that folks will be less likely to implement a FTE that incorporates the thr:replies element. So if I seem grumpy and reluctant to change, please try to be patient and understand. - James
