A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> * James Holderness <j4_james@...> [2006-10-27 12:20]:
>> A. Pagaltzis wrote:
>>> To me the language you quote clearly means that an image must
>>> be resized to whatever width and height is specified in the
>>> feed, with absent values defaulting to the given sizes. The
>>> image's own dimensions are never to be considered at all.
>> Fair enough. I just thought (and still think) that was
>> a strange thing to do and I haven't seen any other aggregators
>> interpret it that way which is why I thought it might have been
>> a mistake in the spec. Actually, I would have said it was
>> *obviously* a mistake, but I guess it's not obvious to everyone
>> else so I'm probably wrong.
>
> No, it *is* a strange thing and it *is* obviously a mistake, no
> doubt about it. I was just saying that in my reading, the
> language in the spec leaves no room for any other interpretation,
> however nonsensical the prescribed behaviour may be. I certainly
> won't fault any aggregator for not complying with this aspect of
> the spec.

One could make a similar argument about adding attributes in namespaces
to existing core elements. On a number of elements, the existing spec
gives a list of attributes that are permitted. At no point does it say
"and you can add any other ones you wish". The original RSS 2.0 spec
also provides a section on extensibility, and permits exactly one form.

From my perspective, it seems to me that this advisory board has taken
a bizarre turn recently, from clarifying and providing helpful
observations on the state of practice (e.g., "produces should be aware
that not all clients respect the default"), to declaring portion of the
spec that are perceived to be inconvenient to be "sloppy" and engaging
in the writing of a new spec; in the process also ignoring the RoadMap
contained therein.

I'll also note that the proposed draft itself choses to omit the RoadMap
entirely.

Accordingly, I am hereby asking that my name be removed from the draft,
the profile, and any other documents produced by this advisory board;
and furthermore not be mentioned in other venues (like weblog postings)
that draw attention to this work.

- Sam Ruby