Graham wrote:
On 16 Mar 2005, at 5:13 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
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.
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.
From a purely aesthetic point of view, we now have one element name with a hyphen while the rest are one word. Yuck.
Secondly, whereas before we had two types of head with identical syntax, we now have feed and source-feed with different syntax. Double yuck.
The previous text wasn't any better, and had an undefined extension point (sibling of entry and head). But this is just aesthetics. RSS2 does it this way, and it works fine.
Thirdly, a lot of the metadata in <head> (or <feed>) does not describe the <feed> element, they describe various different subjects:
- This feed document
- The feed in general
- Entry defaults
I don't think this is a valuable distinction, but maybe other folks will.
The <head> element indicated that, like headers in other contexts, this is extra data that doesn't have much meaning in itself but may be useful in processing the entries. Defining them as metadata belonging to <feed> was tottally misguided.
I don't understand this statement. How is tagline or updated not feed metadata? Defining "entry defaults" was totally misquided in my opinion, but I lost that argument.
Arguing process is not productive here. Finding out the WG's real view is.
The WGs view appears to be very clearly "no consensus", which has lead to automatic closure of every other pace recently.
This is a process argument. The chairs can deal with that.
Robert Sayre
