Unsurprising, but good news I'd say:
From: "Michelle Cotton via RT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: April 28, 2005 8:58:51 PM PDT
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [rt.icann.org #2905] Last Call: 'The Atom Syndication Format'
to Proposed Standard
Repl
There will probably be a couple of more re-sent messages before the
current storm stops. I have nuked the user who seems to be behind a
stupidly-written spam filter at fault.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
I'll +1 on MAY.
On 27 Apr 2005, at 04:29, Robert Sayre wrote:
On 4/26/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Paul & I are gonna watch a little more debate and then
we'll call rough consensus one way or the other, at which point I at
least will become crushingly rude to anyone who wants to invest m
The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Atom Publishing Format and Protocol
WG to consider the following document:
- 'The Atom Syndication Format '
as a Proposed Standard
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Plea
I'm obviously very down on normative language requiring a summary. I
am open to non-normative language explaining the syndication medium as
we see it today. I acknowledge that people who don't know what they're
doing sometimes create unhappy users by providing title-only feeds.
The examples, espec
The following Paces have not had their fate officially decided:
PaceOptionalSummary (+1)
PaceXmlContentWrapper (+1 -- there was plenty of opposition during the
discussion of this one, but it seemed to be directed at both the
current spec and the Pace, so I don't think it's clear whether people
p
On 4/28/05, Roger B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > That's fine, but we're not here to tailor the format to your app.
>
> Robert: Seriously, dude. C'mon.
>
You're right, that was too snippy.
> But you asked a question, and I answered it. Honestly,
> straightforwardly, and without an weasel
Bill:
That last objection in parens sounds like some of the positions held
around dates - that providers ought to do the right thing for some
definition of the right thing. Given that legacy, I'll claim it's
clear we're not here to police what people ought do with feeds that
could have a summa
Sam Ruby wrote:
This is not a theoretical discussion. Quoting from RSS 0.92[1]:
* All sub-elements of are optional
* any 0.92 source is also a valid 2.0 source
Is this really where we want to go?
No, but please see my other mail replying to Graham on why I think
PaceOptionalSummary does not go
> That's fine, but we're not here to tailor the format to your app.
Robert: Seriously, dude. C'mon.
I don't care what little slap-fight you want to have with Sam, or
Graham, or whoever else you figure is wronging the sublime rightness
of your position. That's your thing, and welcome to it.
You
Graham wrote:
On 28 Apr 2005, at 11:34 am, Bill de hÓra wrote:
I haven't seen any objections to "title only feeds" which you state
is my and Sam's and other's position (we object to feeds that could
have a summary included but don't).
That last objection in parens sounds like some of the position
> Sorry, what was your point again?
Eric: The point was that the *application* drops title- or
content-free entries. It never inserts them into the database. They go
poof.
--
Roger Benningfield
On 28 Apr 2005, at 11:34 am, Bill de hÓra wrote:
I haven't seen any objections to "title only feeds" which you state
is my and Sam's and other's position (we object to feeds that could
have a summary included but don't).
That last objection in parens sounds like some of the positions held
around
Graham wrote:
On 28 Apr 2005, at 10:48 am, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
And of course we're going to have to fish some sort of consensus out
of this horrid summary-required mess. -Tim
I can't agree with that observation. Although there are a few
strenuous objections against title only fe
On 28 Apr 2005, at 10:48 am, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
And of course we're going to have to fish some sort of consensus out
of this horrid summary-required mess. -Tim
I can't agree with that observation. Although there are a few
strenuous objections against title only feeds, on the bal
Tim Bray wrote:
And of course we're going to have to fish some sort of
consensus out of this horrid summary-required mess. -Tim
I can't agree with that observation. Although there are a few strenuous
objections against title only feeds, on the balance consensus is for
them. Is there something y
Graham wrote:
On 27 Apr 2005, at 10:31 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
My opinion is that ~10 WG members are currently clearly stating their
belief that summary/content are optional.
You should make clear that most of those people supported a misleading
Pace that didn't clearly state its side-effects be
Bill de hÓra wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceOptionalSummary
0
I think I'm the only 0 in this. After watching the debate progress over
the last few days, I'm altering my position to +1.
cheers
Bill
On 4/28/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Robert: why did you ask for an example?
>
To find out about any technical issues, not to hear Roger repeat himself.
Robert Sayre
On 4/28/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And of course we're going to have to fish some
> sort of consensus out of this horrid summary-required mess.
That shouldn't be hard. I don't think the WG has ever been more
decisive. If PaceOptionalSummary received 10 negative opinions, I'm
qui
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 4/28/05, Roger B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Do you have an example?
Robert: I'm an example. I also drop title-free feeds (see Scripting
News)... given the nature of the app, a feed without titles or content
is just worthless.
That's fine, but we're not here to tailor the for
On 28/4/05 2:45 PM, "Roger B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Do you have an example?
>
> Robert: I'm an example. I also drop title-free feeds (see Scripting
> News)... given the nature of the app, a feed without titles or content
> is just worthless.
I'm also an example - if I discover that a f
On Apr 27, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Sam Ruby wrote (about the proposal to
address Bob Wyman's dupes issue):
It would help if a Pace could be written.
Funny you should say that, Sam.
We have another week or so to go on our IETF Last Call, but the volume
of input is low enough that Paul & I think we can
23 matches
Mail list logo
