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
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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
