Graham wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005, at 1:03 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
PaceHeadless. The chairs agree that both reads are reasonable, and are ok with this divergence.
The working group aren't. Revert PaceHeadless immediately.
Graham,
I have no desire to contradict the decisions of this WG. I acknowledge that there were negative opinions expressed about PaceHeadless. However, none of the negative opinions other than your own contained technical criticism. Even yours was pretty vague [0,1,2]. Comments in favor were generally thoughtful and based on implementation experience.
All of the objections concerned the atom:head text rather than extensibility. Rejecting the extensibility text because of editorial comments about atom:head is not appropriate. The extensions text in atom:head is nearly identical to PaceExtensionConstruct, which Tim didn't like because of RDF language, but everyone else approved. The current text has no RDF language.
Arguing process is not productive here. Finding out the WG's real view is. The editors will gladly revert, change, delete, add etc etc. The group needs to tell us what to do.
Robert Sayre
[0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13178.html [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13415.html [2] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13458.html
