Sam Ruby wrote:
This pace dropped the requirement for an alternate link. This pace dropped the requirement for a summary when content is not present.
Yes, because the WG has *never* voiced an opinion in favor of that constraint, and we fail to meet the requirements of our charter for any definition of "syndication"that takes prior art into account.
Content remains optional.
The pace did not drop the requirement for a link element in the absence of content.
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...
Strawmen are usually tactical errors.
My order of preference:
PaceFeedIdOrAlternate PaceFeedIdOrSelf Current Text PaceCoConstraintsAreBad
"no one has spoken up in favor of the current text" remains true.
Robert Sayre
