Subject: Work Queue Rotation #7

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 10:53:30 -0700

Co-chairs' take on consensus on the current discussion items.  As 
always, the floor is open for push-back.

PaceDigitalSignatures

I think we have consensus to accept this, with a hard restriction that 
we use child-only  signatures, and slight variation in language to say 
that you can't ignore a message because it has a signature 
(http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08804.html)

Sayre said (http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08817.html) that 
we need a standard way of linking to external signatures, but nobody 
picked up on this idea.  Rob, I think you're going to have to do some 
more work if you really want that.

Examples on this one would be helpful; Mark Pilgrim had provided some 
but they were envelope signatures.

PaceErrVerb
PaceServiceError

The only discussion was from Sayre 
(http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08841.html) lightly 
changing PaceServiceError.  I don't think this has consensus to go 
forward.  I guess they go back in Revisit for one more look, but if 
someone wants to say "close them" they won't get any resistance from 
the co-chairs.

PaceEquivalents

This does not have anything like consensus backing.  Our feeling is 
that it's unlikely to get consensus in another try, so would suggest 
closing it.

Ayers proposes a note saying the Atom terms are specializations of the 
DC terms: http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08863.html  Hmm, 
if he wants to do a private I-D?

PaceItemLicense

Two -1's, no support.  Close it.

PaceReduceMustMay

No support.  Everyone agrees that we should use 2119 language 
appropriately and correctly.  There is little support for saying 
anything else.  Close it.

PaceSimplifiedFeedFormat

No support, a coherent call for closure from Graham.  Close it.

  -Tim

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:19:56 +0100

> more work if you really want that.

Datapoint:

http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/AttachmentsProfile-1.0-2004-08-24.html#Referencing_Attachments_from_the_SOAP_Envelope

SonOfSwA lives.

cheers
Bill

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:51:07 -0400

> more work if you really want that.

I don't feel strongly about it. I was only repeating Mark P. and Paul.

> (http://imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08841.html) lightly changing 
> PaceServiceError.  I don't think this has consensus to go forward.  I 
> guess they go back in Revisit for one more look, but if someone wants to 
> say "close them" they won't get any resistance from the co-chairs.
> 

I called for PaceErrVerb to be closed 
(http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08959.html).

In the past, when PaceServiceError was actually debated, there were a 
number of people who favored it.

I'm puzzled that the chairs consider lack of discussion to be an 
accurate indicator of consensus against it, especially when objections 
of others have repeatedly considered and usually *incorporated* into the 
proposal. The remaining criticisms seem to come from people opposed to 
"extending HTTP", yet those same people have no problem with 
atom-specific headers.

More likely, PaceServiceError wasn't discussed because the list has been 
full of repetitive, redundant posts about IDs, Dates, and RDF.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 13:09:29 -0700

On Aug 27, 2004, at 11:51 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:

> I'm puzzled that the chairs consider lack of discussion...

The co-chairs freely admit that they have to do a certain amount of 
guessing and inferring, and that errors are inevitable.  Sometimes 
we've read silence one way, sometimes another.  Better luck to these 
two next time around.

> More likely, PaceServiceError wasn't discussed because the list has 
> been full of repetitive, redundant posts about IDs, Dates, and RDF.

You have a point. -Tim

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 22:29:06 +0200

> more work if you really want that.

I like the idea, but as Robert, I don't feel very strongly about it. Nice  
to have, but not at all a must-have.

> PaceServiceError

These two will probably conflate over the next days, which will result in  
closure of PaceErrVerb.

> PaceEquivalents
>
> This does not have anything like consensus backing.

That's my feeling too, although the text in this pace is useful, to some  
degree. Maybe it can be put in an informative appendix?

> No support, a coherent call for closure from Graham.  Close it.

I think this has been re-written so many times and currently is so off  
with the rest of the specification that it needs to be closed and  
restarted to get the text and proposal right.

It tries to define both simple Atom feeds that only contain pointers to  
resources as well as Atom entries as stand-alone documents. These two  
proposals would be better served if they were in two different paces, imho.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»