Robert Sayre wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
co-constraints are bad.
Entries without either a summary or content or even a link to where you can find the data are worse.
Does my Pace allow such a creature?
This pace dropped the requirement for an alternate link. This pace dropped the requirement for a summary when content is not present. Content remains optional.
Am I misreading the Pace? The abstract seems clear enough...
While I agree with your recent statement that "no one has spoken up in favor of the current text", I resonate more with Paul's recent statement[1] that:
It doesn't matter whether or not they are "too controversial"; the spec is frozen for significant technical changes.
Unless, of course, the WG decides we really do want to open it all up again an take another probably four months of deciding what else we want to add and change. We can do that by amending our charter. So far, I have not heard consensus going towards that, but I could be wrong.
I wrote a Pace that inserted seven words and only changed one element, feeling that we might be able to come to an agreement on that. This appears to have been a tactical error as it was immediately followed by a pace that changed one word and added twenty one, affecting two elements. Now you introduce a pace that changes the definition of three elements.
My order of preference:
PaceFeedIdOrAlternate PaceFeedIdOrSelf Current Text PaceCoConstraintsAreBad
- Sam Ruby
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg14049.html
