Subject: PaceSyntaxGuidelines status

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:17:36 -0800

If there were no further discussion: Hasn't got enough support so far, 
but also has had no opposition we can find.  -Tim

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 17:08:45 -0800

On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:02 PM, Joe Gregorio wrote:

> It reads like more of a guideline than a Pace. Inspecting the format
> for conformance to these guidelines and generating Paces for
> non-conformances seems like a better way to proceed than to actually
> add this text to the spec.

Actually, take a closer look, I got fooled too it first glance: It's 
talking about how *extensions* should use syntax, not how the spec 
should. -Tim

---

From: Joe Gregorio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:27:40 -0500

> talking about how *extensions* should use syntax, not how the spec

In that case +1.

   -joe

-- 
Joe Gregorio        http://bitworking.org

---

From: Joe Gregorio <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 20:02:50 -0500

-joe

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:08:08 -0800

> but also has had no opposition we can find.  -Tim

You know, I'd never really thought about this one, but now that I have, 
I wonder why on earth we should be trying to micromanage syntax for 
people we don't know writing extensions we know nothing about to solve 
problems we've never heard of... I'm veering toward -1.  -Tim

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:24:59 +0000

> but also has had no opposition we can find.  -Tim

-1

I don't think it's useful or necessary. It's also a bit chatty.

Graham

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 21:42:53 -0500

>>talking about how *extensions* should use syntax, not how the spec

-1. Adds no value. Most people will look at the spec without reading it, 
  imitate the examples, and end up with similar syntax anyway. People 
who take the time to read the spec are even less likely to do something 
ugly. That mostly leaves elements from existing vocabularies.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:38:55 -0700

> 7.2 Common element usage
>
> The following actual elements should only be used in the ways 
> specified below.
>
>     * link: Purposes of link elements are specified by a list of legal 
> values for link/@rel, and we are considering allowing extensions to 
> specify additional values. If the external resource being referred to 
> is not one that would make sense to present to the user as a clickable 
> link, some other element should be used instead. For example, link is 
> used to point to an alternate representation of the content of the 
> entry, to the next set of entries in a feed, etc. The link element is 
> not appropriate for pointing to things like a stylesheet for the feed, 
> an XSL template, etc., which are not intended for viewing by the user.

Although I'm in favor of this concept, the workgroup has rejected 
efforts to incorporate such language into the definition of link 
constructs. Are we going to recommend this for extensions if we're not 
going to hold the core to it?  If so, this section needs rewording.

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:29:58 +0100

> problems we've never heard of... I'm veering toward -1.  -Tim

How can guiding extension-writing people to use a defined syntax be bad? I  
mean, what implications can syntax have over what the extensions try to  
accomplish? Is it critical for any applications to have  
'elementsWrittenLikeThis' instead of 'elements-written-like-this'?

I came up with the guidelines because I'd like to see Atom, with  
extensions, look as clean and easilly readable as possible. If Atom  
becomes a mish-mash of different syntax «standards», it will be horrible  
to read, parse and generate.

I'm very much open to rewriting stuff if there's anything in particular  
people have problems with.

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

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:37:56 -0500

Asbjørn Ulsberg wrote:

> becomes a mish-mash of different syntax «standards», it will be 
> horrible  to read, parse and generate.

Asbjørn, I can sympathize with the goal, but it's not appropriate to 
include in the spec. It's babysitting.

If the mythical Implementor's Guide were to materialize, it might make a 
good home for this text.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2005 20:49:17 +0100

> include in the spec. It's babysitting.

I kind of agree.

> If the mythical Implementor's Guide were to materialize, it might make a  

Let's wait for it and see, then. I think we're facing a long time of  
waiting, though.