The following are dropped for lack of support:
- PaceAltExtensibilityAndVersioning: one -1, no support from anyone.
- PaceExtensibilityAndVersioning: one -0 and one -1.
- PaccExtensibilityAndVersioningNoScenarios: one -0, no support from anyone.
- PaceExtensionNamespace: two -1, no support from anyone.
- PaceMinimalEntryVersioning: one +1, two -1s, and a 0-to--1..
- PaceMustUnderstandElement: a few positive responses, a bunch of very negative responses.
- PaceSupersede: two -1s, no support from anyone.
It's not all negative. PaceExtensionConstruct got a good bit of discussion and was heavily revised by its author in response. I think this has a good chance of being accepted after another round of discussion. That discussion should happen *soon* while we are still thinking about the extension mechanisms we want. Recycle with the new wording.
Also, PaceExtendingAtom got one +1 from the author, but no other discussion. I think we should reconsider it as an addition after the stuff from PaceExtensionConstruct (if we accept that pace) or as all of section 9 (if we don't accept PaceExtensionConstruct); otherwise, we aren't helping folks who are thinking about extending Atom. Recycle.
We're still making good progress, but there is more to be done.
--Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
