Subject: Work Queue Rotation #12

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 14:07:02 -0800

Current issues list: 
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/AtomPubIssuesList

Once again, feel free to object if Paul & I have mis-read the sense of 
the group, it happens.

PaceContentOrLink + PaceOptionalAlternateLink: the combo has rough 
consensus, accept it.

PaceDateModified: No consensus. Close it.

PaceErrVerb + PaceServiceErr: No consensus, but not decisively 
rejected.  Put them on the revisit list and recommend that those in 
favor rework a bit based on the discussion.

PacePersonConstruct: I think (but feel free to shout me down) that we 
have rough consensus that this is a good idea, that its name could be 
improved, and that it belongs in atom:entry, not "Person Constructs".  
If people feel that's roughly right, I'd be happy to trust Rob and 
MNot's editorial judgment to figure out how to work that consensus into 
the draft.
-Tim

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 00:58:28 +0100

> PaceDateModified: No consensus. Close it.

No consensus to reject it either. Doesn't that mean it should go back
on the revisit list?
(In my estimation it only swerved around inclusion because of the
chair lying in the road).

> PacePersonConstruct:
...
 I'd be happy to trust Rob and
> MNot's editorial judgment to figure out how to work that consensus into

+1, ditto for the other issues you mentioned.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:18:47 +1100

> No consensus to reject it either. Doesn't that mean it should go back

+1

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 16:32:27 -0800

> PaceContentOrLink + PaceOptionalAlternateLink: the combo has rough 

Oops, I had seen PaceContentOrLink as modifying 
PaceOptionalAlternateLink, but it's been pointed out to me that it 
replaces it, what I'm really saying is, in effect, accept 
PaceContentOrLink and close PaceOptionalAlternateLink.  Agreed? -Tim

---

From: Sascha Carlin <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 01:33:39 +0100

+1

Sascha

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:40:51 -0500

>> chair lying in the road).

I think it's a terrible idea, and entirely useless if optional. There 
were plenty of technical objections to the Pace.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 09:40:58 +0000

> PaceDateModified: No consensus. Close it.

No consensus either way, but I'd strongly urge the group to close 
it. [I've seen no compelling case made that we have any business 
specifying user behaviour in this fashion.]

+1

+1

cheers
Bill

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:11:54 +0100

> were plenty of technical objections to the Pace.

I think it's a brilliant idea and think Atom will be hobbled without
it. There was support from quite a few people (around 50%?). No-one
explained how the straightforward use cases I provided could be dealt
with using atom:updated alone.

Like I said, no consensus. I don't think that means it should be rejected.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:21:00 +0000

> with using atom:updated alone.

Send a link. I'll explain it.

cheers
Bill

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:54:28 +0100

> Send a link. I'll explain it.

Choosing latest entry from multiple feeds:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg10894.html

Single feed for project documentation:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg10931.html

I've also not seen any considered response to Bob's point, that at
entries published after a particular atom:updated would implicitly be
treated as equivalent.

[[
This implies that if I find multiple versions of an entry, I should
ignore all but the *first* instance of an entry found with any
particular atom:updated value. I should not be concerned with
identifying the "latest" version since any version that shares the
same atom:updated value is equivalent in the opinion of the publisher.
The opinion of the publisher is paramount in these issues.
]]
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg10930.html 

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 04:14:38 +0100

> No consensus to reject it either. Doesn't that mean it should go back

I think so, at least.

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

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:56:44 +0100

> > Send a link. I'll explain it.

Wind whistles...tumbleweed drifts by...

-- 

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:10:57 +0000

> Wind whistles...tumbleweed drifts by...

Danny,

My apologies. I'm shipping 2 systems. This explanation requires more 
than a dashed off or reactive mail and won't get looked at until next 
weekend. If that's too long for you, I concede.

The above observation, I believe, could have been phrased:

"Have you had a chance to do this yet?"

and would perhaps have been more conducive.

cheers
Bill

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 13:58:17 +0100

> and would perhaps have been more conducive.

My apologies, you're right of course. 
It was just meant as a reminder, my impatience was because your "I'll
explain it." seemed to have been left like a QED in the margin a la
Fermat.

But I hope the shipping goes well, and look forward to your response. 

Email is a poor medium for nuances, but you should know by now not to
take anything I say too seriously...

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com