Subject: PacePersonLinks status

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:39 -0800

If there were no further discussion: Has failed to get anywhere near 
enough support to call rough consensus in previous go-arounds.  -Tim

---

From: Joe Gregorio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:16:23 -0500

-1

If I understand all the Paces correctly, couldn't you get the same
effect by including foaf as a Structured Extension of Person?

    -joe

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:25:42 +1100

> enough support to call rough consensus in previous go-arounds.  -Tim

was that failure of consensus due to pushback on the very concept of <link>
itself (or related @rel disharmony), or actual disagreement with the use of
<link> in person?

e.

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:17:32 +1100

> effect by including foaf as a Structured Extension of Person?

only by including the foaf XML right there in the feed (oh the bloat!), or
at least sufficient of the foaf XML to build a reference to a fuller foaf
file elsewhere.

and then you still don't have a means of providing a link to a non-foaf
resource related to the person ... admittedly though you could by wrapping
those links inside a foaf wrapper (which is just one more thing a publisher
needs to learn how to do... ie. another opportunity to get something wrong).

e.

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:03:56 -0700

> itself (or related @rel disharmony), or actual disagreement with the 
I'm in favor of the basic concept.  I'm a little afraid of the list of 
proposed @rel values it would spawn--that people would want to be able 
to specifically point to too many things that are very similar to each 
other.  I don't expect the proposal to achieve consensus.  Looks like a 
good opportunity to float an extension and see if it gets widely 
adopted.