Subject: Work Queue Rotation #5

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:27:22 -0700

Here's where I think are on the current work items from 
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomPubIssuesList - as always, the 
traffic volume is high & nonlinear and I may have misread on one or 
more of these, feel free to disagree.

1. PaceAutoDisco

I think we have consensus to turn MarkP's draft 
(http://diveintomark.org/rfc/draft-pilgrim-atom-autodiscovery-02.html) 
into a committee draft with Mark as editor.  There was some desultory 
discussion of rolling it into one of the existing drafts, but I didn't 
hear much cheering.  Paul & Mark should talk about mechanics & process. 
  I guess (on the basis of little discussion) that both the format and 
protocol drafts should informatively reference the new draft.  I think 
we can mark this "accepted" in principle and give the editors a fairly 
free hand in how & where to work the language in.

2. PaceFeedEquivalence

I don't think we're done with discussion about what goes in atom:id, 
but whatever happens with that, it's clear that Atom implementors will 
end up doing some URI comparisons, and that wherever this comes up in 
our drafts, we (a) bless the use of codepoint-by-codepoint comparisons, 
(b) acknowledge that real-software often goes further, and (c) in the 
case that RFC2396bis gets finished before Atom, point informatively to 
its section 6, and (d) write language into the specifications 
encouraging the canonicalization of URIs, I see little dissent to Sam 
Ruby's suggestion at 
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceCanonicalIds, but I'm aware of 
at least one further proposal incoming on atom:id so let's put Sam's 
Pace into "Need To Revisit".  However, I don't think the language in 
the actual PaceFeedEquivalence is what we ended up with, so let's mark 
this "closed".

3. PaceLinkReflection

I was apparently the only person pushing back, and I was OK with Sam's 
reformulation at http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08137.html, 
and nobody else seemed unhappy, so let's mark this "accepted" on the 
basis of Sam's language.

4. PaceResource and PaceSimpleResourcePosting

I proposed a way forward here: 
http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08045.html, which involved a 
bit of editorial discretion, the only real pushback was from Ken 
MacLeod (http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08052.html) but I 
think his issue was around the whole PUT/DELETE question which is I 
think separable from the Atom Protocol supporting a simple way to POST 
non-textual resources.  Ken separately 
(http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08058.html) suggested 
withdrawing PaceNonEntryResources and I saw no dissent.

Sam can now fire up his mighty Issues-List engine and re-clog our 
inbaskets... -Tim