Subject: PaceEntriesAllTheWayDown status

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:48 -0800

If there were no further discussion:  This is a radical change to the 
document and, so far, hasn't gathered widespread enough support to make 
it over the line.  -Tim

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 01:46:10 +0000

On 25 Jan 2005, at 12:17 am, Tim Bray wrote:

> document and, so far, hasn't gathered widespread enough support to 
> make it over the line.  -Tim

-1

Architectural astronautics at its most textbook.

Graham

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:13:44 +0100

> document and, so far, hasn't gathered widespread enough support to make  

I haven't seen it before, but think it's a nice proposal. I don't see the  
big (bad) implications it has on the spec or implementations of it; if  
anything, it should make it easier to read the specification and parse and  
generate Atom documents. +1.

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

---

From: Henry Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:59:08 +0100

Are we speaking about PaceEntriesAllTheWayDown2 here?
Because if we are I am still behind it, (though it may need adapting as 
it was written
for the previous version of the spec). I also think we may get a +1 
from Roy Fielding,
as I think this is just step 1 of his proposal. I also think we could 
get a +0 from
Bob Wyman, because I don't think it really affects his head in entry.

Henry

On 25 Jan 2005, at 20:13, Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:
> I haven't seen it before, but think it's a nice proposal. I don't see 
> the big (bad) implications it has on the spec or implementations of 
> it; if anything, it should make it easier to read the specification 
> and parse and generate Atom documents. +1.
>
> --

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 21:39:28 +0100

> Are we speaking about PaceEntriesAllTheWayDown2 here?

I never saw PaceEntriesAllTheWayDown, but PaceEntriesAllTheWayDown2 looks  
good; so, yes.

> it was written for the previous version of the spec). I also think we
> may get a +1 from Roy Fielding, as I think this is just step 1 of his
> proposal.

Okay, cool.