Subject: Work Queue Rotation #8: final dispositions

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 10:38:17 -0400

Sam Ruby wrote:

Trying to wrap up loose ends..

I've not seen a specific dispostion of these, so I'm putting them back 
to need to revisit.  Perhaps they might get withdrawn if a something 
like PaceReformedContent[1] were to get adopted:

   PaceContentAsTextOrHtml
   PaceContentSrc
   PaceNukeMultipart
   PaceSimpleContentType

Disposed of in a separate message[2]:

Accepted:
   PaceServiceElement

Revisit:
   PacePersonConstructs
   PacePersonLinks

Close:
   PacePersonRef

And in yet another message[3]

Accepted:
   PaceDateUpdated

And in yet another message [4], PaceProtocolDesignTeam2 was apparently 
accepted.  Unless I hear otherwise, I am going to presume that this 
means that the following was closed: PaceProtocolDesignTeam.

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg09533.html
[2] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg09490.html
[3] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg09420.html
[4] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg09529.html

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 14:41:10 -0400

For starters, PaceDatePublished is the Date proposal for this round. 
Tim suggested he would support it if the date were made optional, but 
even without Tim's support, this proposal has the most listed supporters 
of the remaining date proposals.

I agree with Tim that we seem to be converging on how to deal with the 
"textual" elements, so I am putting this back out for discussion.  For 
my part, I'm withdrawing PaceContentAsTextOrHtml.  Hopefully, we can get 
more proposals closed, and any issues that may exist on the remaining 
proposals come in the form of either new proposals or modifications to 
existing proposals.  The content related proposals scheduled for this 
cycle are as follows:

   PaceContentSrc
   PaceNukeMultipart
   PaceReformedContent
   PaceReformedContentRedux
   PaceSimpleContentType

Reviewing the ID related proposals, it occurred to me that 
PaceIdConstruct got partially incorporated; making all of the existing 
ID related Paces obsolete.  It seems to me that the workgroup would be 
best served by retiring the existing paces and soliciting proposals 
relative to the current document.  This can be accomplished by either 
updating the existing Paces (in which case, I'll move it back into an 
active status), or by opening up a new Pace.  The paces affected are:

   PaceBasicAtomID
   PaceComparingIds
   PaceCanonicalIds
   PaceIdConstruct2
   PaceRecommendIdScheme

Finally, PaceHeadInEntry has never been scheduled before, so I've put it 
on the list.

I don't feel guilty about not scheduling any protocol related Paces as 
the atom-protocol mailing list seems to be fairly active at the moment.

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:07:12 -0700

On Sep 24, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Sam Ruby wrote:

> The content related proposals scheduled for this cycle are as follows:
>
>   PaceContentSrc
>   PaceNukeMultipart
>   PaceReformedContent
>   PaceReformedContentRedux
>   PaceSimpleContentType

I suggest that PaceReformedContentRedux supersedes PaceReformedContent, 
and that people who want to discuss these issues use the *Redux 
version.  Also, I propose that PaceReformedContent be closed.

And, just as a reminder, ReformedContentRedux is an attempt to capture 
consensus around ContentSrc, NukeMultipart, and SimpleContentType -Tim

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 17:59:18 -0400

> consensus around ContentSrc, NukeMultipart, and SimpleContentType -Tim

I support PaceReformedContentRedux

...on the condition that we don't consider its stance on inline content 
typing an indication of consensus in that area. Instead, let's consider 
it a continuation of the status quo. We can debate the use of MIME types 
to describe XML child content at a later date.

I suspect this is the only area where there is real disagreement[0], and 
I think discussion will be more productive with the rest of 
PaceReformedContentRedux in place.

Robert Sayre

[0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg10043.html

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 22:10:20 -0400

Robert Sayre wrote:
>> I suggest that PaceReformedContentRedux supersedes 
>> PaceReformedContent, and that people who want to discuss these issues 
>> use the *Redux version.  Also, I propose that PaceReformedContent be 
>> closed.
>>

I'd agree with this.  Fold PaceReforedContentRedux in, and solicit Paces 
using that as the baseline.

- Sam Ruby

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 06:57:43 +0900

Hello Tim,

>consensus around ContentSrc, NukeMultipart, and SimpleContentType -Tim

I have commented on PaceReformedContentRedux at
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg10043.html,
but haven't seen any reply from you (or from anybody else) yet.
I'd appreciate if the issues I raised got addressed.

Regards,    Martin.