Walter Underwood wrote:
--On Monday, January 24, 2005 04:17:40 PM -0800 Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there were no further discussion: The WG completely failed to converge to
consensus on these issues last time around. Consensus can still be found here. -Tim
I'm +1 on this, and feel that it belongs in the spec. This is a constraint on the format of the feed document, and is testable.
I would add a note that 3023 is normative, and maybe move the
notes in 6.1 to an appendix.
I'm very -1 on this, since it makes the definition of the Atom format an HTTP message, rather than an XML document.
On top of that, most of the Pace is babysitting. To the Guide with it.
Robert Sayre
