Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/9/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also feel the need to express deep dismay at the way that author of PaceOptionalSummary has been pursuing a scorched earth approach whereby everybody who expresses an opinion to the contrary is viciously attacked for doing so. I believe that this has significantly hampered the ability of the work group to hold a reasonable discourse on the subject.
I believe the secretary significantly hampered discourse on this subject for *months*, by claiming the issue had consensus and was closed.
It appears that the scorched earth campaign is destined to continue unabated. It is an interesting theory, now lets explore the facts.
The secretary's job is to schedule the discussion of Paces. PaceOptionalSummary was authored on 2005/04/30, and scheduled on 2005/05/05.
PaceOptionalSummary was preceded by PaceCoConstraintsAreBad, which was authored on 2005/04/06. It, too, was scheduled in the very next round of paces.
I agree with Robert; it conflicts with PaceOptionalSummary and I doubtit would exist if PaceOptionalSummary had not make the cut.
-1 as well. Doesn't solve a technical problem. It's just gamesmanship.
Alternate theory. After months of foreshadowing, PaceOptionalSummary was exquisitely timed to coincide with last call. Along with a diversionary burst of fire concerning alleged process issues.
Here's where SHOULD comes in. We're lucky that we have an example of what happens when a SHOULD is violated. I'm sure most of you saw the nasty arguments, accusations, and all-around busted software that happen this week with Google Web Accelerator and Ruby On Rails.[0] Ugly, right? This WG should be proud that we've kept the SHOULDs to a minimum.
Interesting analogy, let's see how it pans out.
The W3C could have made idempotency a MUST, which effectively would have prevented useful things like hit counters.
Or they could have made idempotency a MAY, slamming the door shut not only things like Google's WebAccelerator, but also on all web crawlers.
Instead, they decided to make idempotency a SHOULD, opening the door for web crawlers by putting servers on notice that in the event of a conflict, the onus is on them.
- - -
Back to Atom.
If a entry in a feed does not include a title, and Firefox's Live Bookmark support choses not to display it, who is the onus on?
If an entry in a feed contains neither a textual content nor a summary, and Walter's search engine choses not to index it, who is the onus on?
Simply put, PaceOptionalSummary is incomplete.
Also, I'm having trouble reconciling your road lying with the assertion that the two proposals are compatible. How can they be if their outcomes are so different?
In my note yesterday morning, I made it abundantly clear what I objected to. It wasn't the text between the ==Proposal== and ==Impacts== markers.
- - -
The W3C got it right. And so should we.
Answer the two questions above. Without hysterics like "burst into fire". What we actually are talking about here is aggregators that drop information on the floor.
Should we warn producers about this?
- Sam Ruby
