Subject: PaceDateofSubject status

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:51 -0800

If there were no further discussion: This topic was beaten to death a 
few times in the WG. Unless there is a wave of enthusiasm unaccompanied 
by -1s, the dates in the current Internet Draft will be all that ships 
with the final document.

  -Tim

---

From: Sascha Carlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:08:11 +0100

> by -1s, the dates in the current Internet Draft will be all that ships 

That is, PaceDateOfSubject won't go in? +1 to that.

Funny enough, I am listed as one of the supporters of this pace. In fact, I am 
not: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07767.html>

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 13:11:45 +1100

> not: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07767.html>

That message of yours talks about "dateline", a similar concept but one
which was discussed quite some time before DateOfSubject was proposed (July,
vs September)

You weren't in the original list of supporters, in fact you were added in
the version of "2004-10-10 23:46:47" by userID "p508170DA". That's not me or
any of the other editors of that Pace.

I've taken your name off the Pace.

e.

---

From: Sascha Carlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:24:51 +0100

> which was discussed quite some time before DateOfSubject was proposed (July,

I could not quite see the difference between DateLine and DateOfSubject... Is 
there any significant difference?

Regards, Sascha

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:25:36 +1100

> there any significant difference?

dateline is the date[+place] the article was written (as different from
published), and so while it would suit some of the use cases for
DateOfSubject it wouldn't work for all of them.

e.