Subject: Work Queue housekeeping

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:49:48 -0700

We're a few days into the latest work queue rotation, and some 
housekeeping is called for.

Current issues list: 
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomPubIssuesList

1. PaceDatePublished

As the Pace is written, with the date required, it is failing to get 
consensus.  If the date is made optional, the discussion is more 
interesting; I have seen no -1's, but I've also seen not much 
enthusiasm, and I'm nervous about blessing something where the main 
reaction seems to be "yeah, whatever".  So, whoever authored this one, 
please update it to make the date optional, or I will this evening.  
And if anybody would like to express either enthusiasm or opposition, 
now would be a good time.

2. PaceReformedContent*

I've published PaceReformedContent3, which incorporates lots of 
comments and feedback and generally improves PaceReformedContentRedux.  
With Sam's agreement, let's switch that one into the "Currently Under 
Discussion" list.  One the one hand, as with PaceDatePublished, I've 
seen neither wild enthusiasm nor any -1's.  On the other hand, this was 
written as an attempt to capture consensus coming out of a large amount 
of prior discussion.  On the third hand, I'm biased, so Paul is 
eventually gonna have to make the call on this one anyhow.

  -Tim

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:31:40 -0600

> now would be a good time.
-0.9 because atom:published loosely duplicates dcterms:created and 
dcterms:issued: more precise elements from a well known namespace.  
Let's maximize the probability of people using the same elements to 
indicate those dates by referring people to dcterms rather than 
duplicating them (almost).

Antone

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:14:15 -0400

Tim Bray wrote:
> Current issues list: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomPubIssuesList
> 
> 1. PaceDatePublished
> 
> please update it to make the date optional, or I will this evening.  And 
> if anybody would like to express either enthusiasm or opposition, now 
> would be a good time.

I've made the change (I was the original author), and annotated each of 
the original supporters as having supported this when the element was 
optional.  Those that wish to re-express their support can do so by 
editing the wiki page.

> 2. PaceReformedContent*
> 
> I've published PaceReformedContent3, which incorporates lots of comments 
> and feedback and generally improves PaceReformedContentRedux.  With 
> Sam's agreement, let's switch that one into the "Currently Under 

I think this represents a dramatic improvement over the current draft. 
I say fold it in, and then lets solicit further suggestions.

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Dare Obasanjo <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:49:40 -0700 (PDT)

--- Tim Bray <[email-masked]> wrote:
> of prior discussion. 

Considering you sent mail about it yesterday and a lot
of have busy Monday mornings at work I wouldn't
consider not seeing any discussion about it occuring
within the first twelve hours of it being posted as an
indication that there is no interest. 

I'm basically +1 on your draft. 

=====
THINGS TO DO IF I BECOME AN EVIL OVERLORD #23
I will keep a special cache of low-tech weapons and train my troops in their use. That way -- even if the heroes manage to neutralize my power generator and/or render the standard-issue energy weapons useless -- my troops will not be overrun by a handful of savages armed with spears and rocks.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

---

From: "Roger B." <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2004 23:26:24 -0500

> 1. PaceDatePublished

Tim: +1 as it currently stands.

--
Roger Benningfield

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:47:25 +0200

> 1. PaceDatePublished

I'm definately +1 on this. I would of course like it to be required if  
publishing systems all over were able to provide it, but I know they  
aren't, so I'm fine with it being optional. The optionality of it doesn't  
make me want to put it into an extension, though. Not everything in the  
core needs to be required, imho.

> Discussion" list.

Sounds like a good plan.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg    -=|=-     http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 08:49:15 +0200

> dcterms:issued: more precise elements from a well known namespace.

If we can have a published/issued date in Atom, I really don't care which  
namespace it resides in. And as 'issued' was impossible to get any kind of  
consensus around, I think 'published' (with mostly the same semantics) is  
just as good, or even better.

> duplicating them (almost).

What's the problem of providing both 'atom:published' and 'dcterms:issued'?