Subject: I wanna go home

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 21:12:53 -0600

I'd like to see a fair number of changes from the current draft, but 
there are very few changes that I want badly enough, and have enough 
hope of seeing approved to overshadow my desire to finish Atom 1.0 
expeditiously.  Here's what I'd like to see--small changes that 
minimally deal with problems and don't close the door to extensions to 
more comprehensively deal with them:

Multiple authors:
* Allow multiple atom:author elements per feed/entry
* Keep atom:contributor
* Leave "byline" or ordering of authors to an extension for those who 
need it

Multiple instances of an entry in a feed document
* Allow it
* State that multiple entries originating in the same feed with the 
same atom:id are instances of the same entry [yes, they're SUPPOSED to 
be, even "REQUIRED" to be universally unique, but let's live in the 
real world]
* Leave determination of whether entries originate in the same feed or 
not as an exercise for the reader (I don't see us agreeing on a method 
anytime in the near future)

Ordering of entry instances with the same atom:updated
* Leave it to an extension for those who need it

Then we check the document to make sure it accurately reflects the 
decisions of the WG, and with that, let's ship it.

Then a bunch of things I certainly don't propose we debate or decide 
now, but which sound like good ideas to me: we can all watch what 
happens as we gain real life experience; blog about our unhappiness 
with this or that if we so desire; keep our own individual lists of: a) 
things we totally missed that need to be fixed, b) things we wish had 
been done differently, but the WG voted down, and there are no new 
arguments for (and therefore should be readdressed--but it's nice to 
keep your own list of these to point to and say "see, the WG was wrong 
and I was right"), and c) things we wish had been done differently, but 
the WG voted down, however, there are new compelling arguments for; try 
to solve problems using extensions; and after a while, if any 
significant problems arise that really can't be solved by extensions, 
get the WG back together to do a revision.  At that point, I'd hope 
that we could come up with a list of issues we'd like to have 
addressed, decide which to fix, and then work till those are fixed 
without bringing up a lot more along the way.

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 05:33:58 +0200

* Antone Roundy <[email-masked]> [2005-05-22 05:25]:
> * Leave "byline" or ordering of authors to an extension for
> those who need it

+1

> * State that multiple entries originating in the same feed with
> the same atom:id are instances of the same entry [yes, they're
> SUPPOSED to be, even "REQUIRED" to be universally unique, but
> let's live in the real world]
> * Leave determination of whether entries originate in the same
> feed or not as an exercise for the reader (I don't see us
> agreeing on a method anytime in the near future)

+1, particularly on the last issue.

> * Leave it to an extension for those who need it

+1

> At that point, I'd hope that we could come up with a list of
> issues we'd like to have addressed, decide which to fix, and
> then work till those are fixed without bringing up a lot more
> along the way.

+1

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 00:11:29 -0400

Sounds like a good way to scope the discussion. All of this sounds reasonable.