[Oslc-recon] Comments on Recon spec

[Steve K Speicher]

+1 Agree with the change, not occurrence of ATOM in spec now.

Thanks,
Steve Speicher
IBM Rational Software
OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> 
http://open-services.net

"Oslc-Recon" <oslc-recon-bounces at open-services.net> wrote on 02/26/2013 
04:34:15 PM:

> From: Tuan Dang/Raleigh/IBM at IBMUS
> To: oslc-recon at open-services.net
> Date: 02/26/2013 04:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Oslc-recon] Comments on Recon spec
> Sent by: "Oslc-Recon" <oslc-recon-bounces at open-services.net>
> 
> >5) #ResourceFormats 
> >Just an observation (I know many other specs doe this as well) I wonder 
why
> we say anything about atom+xml anymore, do you really expect it?  It 
would 
> seem like we >should instead have the media type for JSON or more JSON 
considerations.
> >
> >So I'd strike the atom+xml bullet and "Atom Syndication Format XML", 
unless
> you have some hint of a need. 
> 
> No one in the workgroup has voiced interest or need for Atom support. 
And no
> implementer is using this currently. 
> I've taken this out of the spec.  We'll consider again when we have a 
> scenario that calls for it. 
> 
> Thanks ! T
> 
> Tuan Dang
> Tivoli OSLC governance, OSLC Reconciliation workgroup lead, Tivoli 
Common Data Model
> Internet: tdang at us.ibm.com
> phone: (919) 224-1242 T/L 
687-1242_______________________________________________
> Oslc-Recon mailing list
> Oslc-Recon at open-services.net
> http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-recon_open-services.net