--On May 5, 2005 7:17:00 AM -0400 Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Demonstrate that you have revisited the previous discussion, and that you > either > have something new to add, or can point out some evidence that the previous > consensus call was made in error.
PaceCaching was not discussed and rejected based on false information. It was rejected because it was HTTP-specific (it is not), and because it was non-core (similar features are common in other RSS specs). It does not interact with other features, so it should be a fairly clean, quick discussion. wunder -- Walter Underwood Principal Architect, Verity
