Pro-forma request about whether we should meet at the next IETF

Hi again. The next IETF meeting is in Minneapolis, March 6-11; see for details. This WG has not met at an IETF before, and it seems to be doing fine without a face-to-face meeting, but as co-chair, I should ask: do people think we should meet? If so,

Work Queue Rotation #15

The following are dropped for lack of support: - PaceAltExtensibilityAndVersioning: one -1, no support from anyone. - PaceExtensibilityAndVersioning: one -0 and one -1. - PaccExtensibilityAndVersioningNoScenarios: one -0, no support from anyone. - PaceExtensionNamespace: two -1, no support from any

Re: PaceMustUnderstandElement

At 4:29 PM -0600 1/13/05, Roger B. wrote: All it will take is an A-lister or three on a mission to essentially force every general-use client developer to support whatever pet extension they're fired up about that week, no matter how ill-conceived. Are you saying that Atom 1.0 should not be extenda

Re: Closure on Extensibility & RDF

At 12:06 AM +0100 1/9/05, Henry Story wrote: The "internet draft" I want to propose is an OWL document. I can get this out tomorrow. It will essentially say everything the current Atom OWL spec says, but in machine readable form. An OWL document is not an Internet Draft. If you cannot create an

Re: Closure on Extensibility & RDF

At 10:54 PM +0100 1/8/05, Henry Story wrote: The IETF document I mentioned is the one this mailing list is working on developing. Then you didn't understand Tim's message. He meant a *new* Internet draft, not a change to the current draft (unless the change is a few sentences). From your list of

Re: Comment on process

At 11:03 PM +0100 1/8/05, Danny Ayers wrote: I am optimistic a compromise on the extensibility/RDF issue can be reached in the given time frame, Good! but find the imposition of such a short period a bit extreme. The WG has been discussing this for *months*. The fact that the chairs have put an e

Re: Closure on Extensibility & RDF

At 8:33 PM +0100 1/8/05, Henry Story wrote: Here is one suggestion I was thinking of to move along, quickly and seamlessly I hope. All that seems fine, but your list is neither a Pace nor an Internet draft, and is therefore not in line with what Tim and I asked for. Given that you talk about an

Re: The Atom Format end-game

At 6:31 PM +1100 1/7/05, Eric Scheid wrote: Aside from focusing on the publishing protocol, which is well due, what else happens after we finalise the format spec? Specifically, what are the IETF hoops that need to be jumped through, and what periods of diligence/comment are mandated? Or will the d

Re: Atom extensibility

At 7:48 AM -0800 1/7/05, Tim Bray wrote: I think that the charter requirements on extensibility will be filled adequately with PaceExtendingAtom. I think they would be filled still better by adopting PaceMustUnderstandElement, but apparently others are unconvinced. Extensibility via a mapping

Re: To RDF or not to RDF, that is the (perennial) question

At 6:43 PM +0100 1/6/05, Henry Story wrote: To restate my point in your terms I believe I have shown that your point (4) is currently true. Ie (4) is not a future. It is currently and actually true. Like RSS1.0 Atom is a constrained form of RDF. But unlike RSS1.0 it is very inconspicuously so.

Re: arbitrary limitations in Person

At 7:38 AM -0800 1/4/05, Tim Bray wrote: On Jan 4, 2005, at 1:39 AM, Henry Story wrote: I was just looking closely at the atom:Person class [1] and found some pretty arbitrary limitations: - why should a Person only have one e-mail address? - why should a Person only have one associated url? I

Re: Priorities in Atom?

This seems like a very useful extension, but not part of the core. I'd say: write it up! I would certainly like to see priorities allowed in some of the feeds I read. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium