Subject: Work Queue Rotation #10

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:53:31 -0700

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

As always, the mail volume is high and Paul & I may be wrong, shout if 
so.

PaceHeadInEntry.  Zero discussion, and it's meaty enough that we're not 
willing to take this as "no objections, in it goes".  Back to the 
revisit queue and if it doesn't get any support next time it gets to 
the front, it's closed.

PaceDatePublished. This one is tough.  We still don't sense enthusiasm, 
but a few hands did go up and we saw no -1's.  I'd like to have a 
meta-rule saying nothing goes in unless a substantial number of people 
are wildly enthusiastic, but we don't have such a rule.  Mark it 
"accepted".

I think that on reviewing the discussion, it's appropriate at this time 
to mark PaceReformedContent3 as accepted, and ask our editors to do 
another format draft on this basis.   There are some un-addressed 
issues, and I would expect to see Paces filed on at least some of the 
following:

- going back to a two-attribute mode/type setup, not just type
- changing the reserved words TEXT, HTML, and XHTML, they offend some
- deprecating text/xml

and so on.

As a side-effect, this means that PaceContentSrc, PaceNukeMultipart, 
and PaceSimpleContentType are marked for closure. -Tim

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2004 14:30:18 -0600

On Tuesday, October 5, 2004, at 01:53  PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> PaceHeadInEntry.  Zero discussion, and it's meaty enough that we're 
> not willing to take this as "no objections, in it goes".  Back to the 
I have no objections to the main premise.  The Atom over XMPP example 
sort of seems to come out of nowhere--yes, it's perfectly relevant, but 
the example could be much simpler by simply showing a populated 
atom:head inside the atom:entry.  One thing that might be worth adding 
would be that atom:entry SHOULD NOT contain an atom:head if its 
contents are identical to those of containing feed's atom:head, and/or 
that when an entry appears in it's original feed, it SHOULD NOT contain 
an atom:head--which SHOULD/MUST be present at the feed level instead.

> PaceDatePublished. This one is tough.  We still don't sense 
> enthusiasm, but a few hands did go up and we saw no -1's.  I'd like to 
> have a meta-rule saying nothing goes in unless a substantial number of 
> people are wildly enthusiastic, but we don't have such a rule.  Mark 
> it "accepted".
Well, I did say -0.9[1].  If this gets accepted, does that mean we're 
saying we don't care what exists in other namespaces, well known or 
not--we're putting whatever we want into the Atom core?

[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg10187.html