Subject: New AtomPubIssuesList for 2004/08/09

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 11:31:04 -0400

Sam Ruby wrote:

http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomPubIssuesList

First topic is ids.  Relative to syntax:

   Tim Bray: "I see little dissent"[1], "The syntax is not worth
   investing that much more WG time in at this point.  Let's pick one
   and move on."[2] and "We have consensus"[3]

Despite this we seem to have some concerns [4],[5] over the process, so 
I am formally including these Paces on today's list.

Relative to semantics, we have two paces, PaceRecommendIdScheme and 
PaceBasicAtomID, both covering similar ground.

PacePostLocationMust seems to be a small clarification, unlikely to be 
very controversial.

PaceIntrospection is one that we have seen before, but hasn't made much 
progress since.  It should either be actively worked, accepted, or closed.

I've also put PaceProvideSchema and PaceWsdl on the list, not in 
anticipation that they will be accepted as is.  Deciding how we approach 
this is pivotal to a number of Paces.  In particular, I would like to 
determine the voices advocating SOAP support (example[6]) are looking 
for SOAP or if WSDL is sufficient.  In particular, as WSDL 2.0 is in 
last call, would the WSDL 2.0 HTTP bindings be acceptable to all?

- Sam Ruby

[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08317.html
[2] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08309.html
[3] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08266.html
[4] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08320.html
[5] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg08321.html
[6] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07581.html

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 21:57:44 +0200

> I am formally including these Paces on today's list.

Sounds fine.

> PaceBasicAtomID, both covering similar ground.

How (and when) should we proceed with these?

> In particular, as WSDL 2.0 is in last call, would the WSDL 2.0 HTTP
> bindings be acceptable to all?

It is to me, at least.

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