Update: Well well, it seems we may have an even more interesting twist to things than I had originally thought could be the case. Please see David Powell’s counter arguments to the “obvious benefits” of the Thread Extension below.
Update : After additional comments from Aristotle, who was then followed up by James Snell, author/editor of the Feed Thread Extension specification, I have come to the conclusion that the FTE is how I originally believed it to be. I’ve followed up their comments with a new post to *hopefully* bring this all to a close. [INSERT: Just reread my own follow-up in which I mentioned I would mark this update with a MUST READ attribute in regards to their comments. thus the added attribute above.]
Thanks to Aristotle, David, and James for providing their insite into this matter. It’s a pretty important matter, and worthy of a good discussion… which is what just took place. Thanks folks!
Great, not only do we now have to deal with the an increase in the number of competing XML syndication formats due to the Atom process …By the way, have you seen the Atom 0.3 vs. Atom 1.0 debate? I told you so… we now also have to deal with duplicates of all the popular RSS extensions as well? Give me a break!
This post started out simple, then grew into something completely different and ten times longer than its needs to be. There’s some good content that can be salvaged for a separate post, on a completely different topic. In the mean time…
Unlike Dare (or maybe his point is just not to break existing software, leaving the existing extensions in place if they already exist, adding new extensions instead of replacing the old with the new?), I understand there is both the need and desire for the Feed Thread Extension.
But like Dare, I recognize that breaking software by replacing existing extensions with new ones causes more damage than it could EVER do good (unless I have completely missed the point, it seems to me this is what his gripe is about… if its not about replacing old with new, and instead never supporting the old, and choosing to implement the new, then I’m not so sure I understand where the problem is.)
Please don’t do that. I REALLY like Atom. It’s an important document specification that goes beyond personal preference over RSS 2.0, as it solves some very real problems that need solving. If significant and recognizable members of the Atom community start breaking the software that the Atom specification helps fix, the message sent is one of being less concerned with fixing problems, and more concerned with having things your own way.
I know for a fact that’s not the message intended to be sent, but I’m pretty sure that’s the message being received.
Thanks for your consideration in this matter. It seems like a pretty important one to me.