Comments on: Comments on OPML 2 expanded Attribute http://www.yabfog.com/wp/2007/08/31/comments-on-opml-2-expanded-attribute Yet another blog full of gas Sun, 06 Jul 2008 20:14:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Dave Winer http://www.yabfog.com/wp/2007/08/31/comments-on-opml-2-expanded-attribute#comment-37810 Dave Winer Fri, 31 Aug 2007 16:58:08 +0000 http://www.yabfog.com/wp/2007/08/31/comments-on-opml-2-expanded-attribute/#comment-37810 See Tom Morris's <a href="http://scripting.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/scripting-news-for-83107/#comment-106937" rel="nofollow">comment</a> on Scripting News, he favors the attribute. See Tom Morris's comment on Scripting News, he favors the attribute.

]]> By: Dave Winer http://www.yabfog.com/wp/2007/08/31/comments-on-opml-2-expanded-attribute#comment-37805 Dave Winer Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:56:32 +0000 http://www.yabfog.com/wp/2007/08/31/comments-on-opml-2-expanded-attribute/#comment-37805 Dan, thanks for the comments, and they are given extra weight because you've developed in this area. You're right, if this makes it into the spec, confusion wiht expansionState must be addressed, and we must say what is to happen when the two disagree. That argues strongly in favor of not including it. (Truth be told, I'm leaning toward not including it myself, but I wanted to have a thorough discussion of it and sensed that we could have one at this point.) The only reason to include it is so that there's a greater chance of compatibility between the tools that depend on its existence. But that's the reason for having a spec in the first place. :lol: Dan, thanks for the comments, and they are given extra weight because you've developed in this area.

You're right, if this makes it into the spec, confusion wiht expansionState must be addressed, and we must say what is to happen when the two disagree. That argues strongly in favor of not including it. (Truth be told, I'm leaning toward not including it myself, but I wanted to have a thorough discussion of it and sensed that we could have one at this point.)

The only reason to include it is so that there's a greater chance of compatibility between the tools that depend on its existence. But that's the reason for having a spec in the first place. :lol:

]]> By: Scripting News for 8/31/07 « Scripting News Annex http://www.yabfog.com/wp/2007/08/31/comments-on-opml-2-expanded-attribute#comment-37804 Scripting News for 8/31/07 « Scripting News Annex Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:52:33 +0000 http://www.yabfog.com/wp/2007/08/31/comments-on-opml-2-expanded-attribute/#comment-37804 [...] Dan MacTough offers a compelling argument for not including “expanded” in the core spec. (I fixed the typos, and reworded the last two sentences per another suggestion, here.) [...] [...] Dan MacTough offers a compelling argument for not including “expanded” in the core spec. (I fixed the typos, and reworded the last two sentences per another suggestion, here.) [...]

]]>