Subject: Re: PaceOptionalAlternateLink

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 10:46:57 -0500

Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
> 
> I'm -1 on making AlternateLink completely optional unless the content is 
> provided.  The use cases on the wiki seem to all include inline content. 
>  Is there a use case for syndication where the content is neither 
> included nor referenced?

I am -1 on PaceOptionalAlternateLink for the same reasons.

> 
> As I see it PaceContentOrLink coupled with PaceReformedContent3 (already 
> approved) provide consumers with a minimum set of guarantees:
> 
>   1) All entries will have a displayable text fallback
>   2) The content is either inline or can be located
> 

I am +1 on PaceContentOrLink, for the same reasons.
So, uh, what Sam said.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Sam Ruby <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:15:02 -0500

Keeping it simple, lets focus on two things.

First, lets take PaceHeadInEntry, which a number of people have 
indicated that they want either this or something like it before the 
format can be declared done.

Second, lets see if we can significantly reduce the number of 
alternative syntaxes being considered for link.  For starters, I'm 
taking Tim's request (as echoed by Rob) that link related Paces which 
have not been updated recently be recommended for closure.

Even with this done, this would have been eight retired Link related 
paces, and eight new Link related Paces.  However, with Danny retiring 
two in favor of PaceFieldingLinks (thanks, Danny!), this shifts the 
balance to ten retired and six under active consideration.

I'd like to reiterate my request that for the ones that we don't come to 
consensus on this time, we don't simply put these back in the queue.

Effectively this means that if somebody objects to a pace, one of three 
things happens:

  (1) the person agrees to work on fixing the issues that they have
      identified, and the issue goes back on the queue with this
      understanding.

  (2) the chairs note the objection, but finds that there is enough
      support for the proposal to declare rough consensus, and the
      proposal gets accepted.

  (3) the pace gets rejected.

- Sam Ruby