Obviously I'm +1 on PaceSimplifyCollections.

I believe something like PaceAppDocuments is needed even if
PaceSimplifyCollections is accepted, so +1 with the 
caveat of it being rewritten to accomodate PaceSimplifyCollections
if that pace is accepted.

In writing PaceSimplifyCollections I tried to incorporate
the work that James and I did on PaceCollectionClasses.
I believe PaceSimplifyCollections includes all the functionality
of PaceCollectionClasses, please let me know if I am wrong.

   Thanks,
   -joe

On 9/8/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> PaceAppDocuments is generally nothing more than a proposal to rework the
> protocol spec so that it's structure and organization is consistent with
> the Format spec.  That said, there are a couple of new things that it
> introduces:
> 
> 1. xml:base in collection documents.  If we go with the
> PaceSimplifyCollections approach, this may be unnecessary.  If we stick
> with the current approach, this should be required
> 2. xml:lang in collection documents.  this should be a no-brainer
> 
> Regarding PaceAppDocuments2 (which I wrote) and PaceCollectionClasses
> (put together by Joe and I), I will gladly retract both in favor of the
> direction of PaceSimplifyCollections with the caveat that I believe
> PaceSimplifyCollections needs quite a bit more work before it is
> entirely acceptable.  I will post a separate note detailing what I think
> needs to be done to fix PaceSimplifyCollections.
> 
> - James
> 
> Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> >A lot of work is going on in the area of collections - in at least two
> >different directions.  Depending on which direction we select, a number
> >of existing paces may become obsolete.  Accordingly, I'm scheduling:
> >
> >  PaceAppDocuments2
> >  PaceSimplifyCollections
> >
> >And the two paces prereqed by PaceAppDocuments2:
> >
> >  PaceAppDocuments
> >  PaceCollectionClasses
> >
> >As always, discussion of these paces should occur on the atom protocol
> >list, with a subject line identifying which pace you are expressing an
> >opinion on.
> >
> >- Sam Ruby
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 


-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org

Reply via email to