Re: Converging?

[Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tim Bray wrote:

> So, from under my co-chair's 
> hat, a question: do people here think that there are some 
> protocol-related Paces that are ready to take to the WG to seek 
> consensus?  

I think there are a number of Paces that need to be written/completed. I 
also think that the debate will be more productive if the editors are 
permitted to revise the draft (and Paces) in light of 2396bis before we 
bring suggestions to the WG. There's too much broken terminology right now.

That said, I don't think there are any deep divisions regarding the 
conceptual model. There is a dearth of proposals on issues where there 
is probably consensus on this list, as we've been debating points where 
we disagree.

My personal opinion on the Paces:

PaceCategoriesFacet: idea close (needs to use the term "resource")
PaceCollectionIdiom: consensus here (probably shouldn't use the term 
"idiom")
PaceEntryQuery: incomplete (needs Greg's ideas)
PaceIntrospection: idea close (needs to use the term "resource")
PaceProblemStatements: editorial
PaceServerCollectionSubsets: incomplete
PaceTemplateConstruct: done (I would like to write an opposing Pace)

Robert Sayre