Subject: Moratorium on atom:id

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 18:19:30 -0700

Greetings again. The results at 
<http://intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/IDSurvey> appear to be in conflict 
with many people posting on the thread titled "OK, enough with 
atom:id". In specific, almost no one on the survey said they disliked 
the "canonical URI" proposal, but many folks on this thread are 
saying that. Oddly, some people on the thread are saying they want 
something much like my "string" proposal, yet no one other than 
myself supported it on the survey, and many folks had a dislike.

Given these disparities, it's worthwhile for us to just be quiet 
about this for awhile. When Tim gets back from his vacation, we'll 
figure out what to do next. In the meantime, let's just let this one 
lay.

Sam, can you move the "currently under discussion" ID paces to "need 
to revisit", and go ahead and close off the two "recommended for 
closure" paces?

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:40:13 -0700

Hi Paul,

Sorry, I didn't see this before the post I just made.

Cheers,

On Aug 9, 2004, at 6:19 PM, Paul Hoffman / IMC wrote:

> the "canonical URI" proposal, but many folks on this thread are saying 
> that. Oddly, some people on the thread are saying they want something 
> much like my "string" proposal, yet no one other than myself supported 
> it on the survey, and many folks had a dislike.
>
> Given these disparities, it's worthwhile for us to just be quiet about 
> this for awhile. When Tim gets back from his vacation, we'll figure 
> out what to do next. In the meantime, let's just let this one lay.
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/