Subject: PacePropertyDesign

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 10:44:33 -0800

This one shouldn't, in my opinion, be on our active-discussion queue, 
because it's uncooked.  That is to say, it doesn't actually propose 
specific changes to our format or protocol drafts.

Having said that, the thinking seems usefully clean and minimal, and I 
wouldn't be surprised if a real Pace, including proposed draft 
revisions, could be built out of this that would have a chance at 
consensus.

But having said that, the language is crucial.  For example, I would be 
-1 on any change that requires Atom implementors to have to internalize 
the notions of "RDF XML Literal" or, really, having to understand 
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns, which is referenced by the 
Pace.

Also, it seems like there's a missing piece.  I'm pretty sure that if 
we did it this way, it would be pretty easy to do a canonical and 
simple mapping from Atom to RDF/XML (right?), and if so, someone should 
write an I-D to define this, and I'd be in favor of adopting it as a WG 
draft.  -Tim

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 13:19:07 -0500

Tim Bray wrote:

> But having said that, the language is crucial.  For example, I would 
> be -1 on any change that requires Atom implementors to have to 
> internalize the notions of "RDF XML Literal" or, really, having to 
> understand http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns, which is 
> referenced by the Pace.
>
> simple mapping from Atom to RDF/XML (right?), and if so, someone 
> should write an I-D to define this, and I'd be in favor of adopting it 
> as a WG draft.  -Tim

Anybody up for writing this? I wrote the Pace, but I don't have time to 
write anything more on it, and I'm not an RDF expert anyway.

Robert Sayre