Subject: PaceLinkByLocation et al--what is a "link"?

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:27:51 -0700

With something akin to PaceLinkPurpose (which is in the recommended for 
closure list...a fact I will object to here, but unless somebody else 
speaks up, I won't waste any more effort advocating it), I think the 
value of PaceLinkByLocation, PaceConstructAttribute, PaceFieldingLinks, 
and PaceLinkRelPrefixReg is limited mostly[1] to name collision 
avoidance.  In other words, unless Link Constructs are constrained to 
the point where an application can handle unknown Link Constructs in 
some default way without...how to say it...doing something stupid, it 
doesn't matter whether the application can recognize unknown Link 
Constructs or not.

[1] PaceConstructAttribute might have some usefulness with respect to 
other construct types (BTW, the list of its values needs to be expanded 
to include one for each construct type defined in the spec...I'll have 
to get to that).  PaceFieldingLinks also defines a default @rel value, 
and pares down the list of @rel values (...too much, in my opinion, but 
I'd rather argue that later).

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 22:51:38 +0000

Yep, Antone. Although no one actually has a use for 
generically-findable link elements, we seem to be stuck with them 
anyway, and stuck with creating a brand new namespace mechanism for it 
for no reason. Never mind. Maybe there's another atompub group 
somewhere we can join that isn't so pigheaded about this.

Graham

On 15 Nov 2004, at 5:27 pm, Antone Roundy wrote:

> With something akin to PaceLinkPurpose (which is in the recommended 
> for closure list...a fact I will object to here, but unless somebody 
> else speaks up, I won't waste any more effort advocating it), I think 
> the value of PaceLinkByLocation, PaceConstructAttribute, 
> PaceFieldingLinks, and PaceLinkRelPrefixReg is limited mostly[1] to 
> name collision avoidance.  In other words, unless Link Constructs are 
> constrained to the point where an application can handle unknown Link 
> Constructs in some default way without...how to say it...doing 
> something stupid, it doesn't matter whether the application can 
> recognize unknown Link Constructs or not.
>
> other construct types (BTW, the list of its values needs to be 
> expanded to include one for each construct type defined in the 
> spec...I'll have to get to that).  PaceFieldingLinks also defines a 
> default @rel value, and pares down the list of @rel values (...too 
> much, in my opinion, but I'd rather argue that later).
>

---

From: Paul Hoffman / IMC <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 15:44:48 -0800

At 10:51 PM +0000 11/15/04, Graham wrote:
>Maybe there's another atompub group somewhere we can join that isn't 
>so pigheaded about this.

Maybe that group would also be amenable to name-calling; judging from 
my personal mail about your recent postings, this one certainly isn't.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:35:20 -0800

> my personal mail about your recent postings, this one certainly isn't.

What Paul said.  For the record, I find Graham's behavior to be 
unacceptably rude.   He's not a troll, because he also makes 
substantive technical comments.  Unfortunately, the WG members who've 
added him to their junk filter aren't seeing them.  -Tim