Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 12:25 PM +0000 2/20/05, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Chairs/Editors,
- I think that this discussion (repeat ids) is architecturally significant in terms of how Atom layers onto the Web and is best taken forward under feed state,
- Feed state discussion ought to deal explicitly with entry state, as that's the more difficult case.
My read of the mailing list is that people are simply looking at the model described in the document differently. Some folks actively want the model the way the document currently reads, other actively want the model to be different, and most don't care about the differences between those two.
When the next draft of the document comes out, this can be rehashed again in the WG if there is a single specific Pace that gives a complete delta from that draft.
However, that Pace will not necessarily hold up us going to IETF last call, unless our AD wants it to. This kind of "does the model say A or B" discussion is quite appropriate in IETF last call, where folks who have very different model ideas might join in.
Ok, my opinions above stand, irrespective of when you think the discussion should be scheduled; there's an architectural issue wrt how Atom layers Web representations and there are tradeoffs to be considered. Anyway, I thought we were done with Paces.
cheers Bill
