Re: Converging?

[Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>]

On Nov 3, 2004, at 7:39 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:

>  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.

I think you are not only permitted but have actually been officially 
requested to revise the drafts per 2396bis.  This should apply to Paces 
too.

> 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.

One note: draft-atompub-protocol-02 needs some work per recent WG 
decisions, at least to take rel="" values out and to implement 
PaceServiceElement.  Right?

> 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)

So, I think Rob is suggesting that
- PaceCollectionIdiom and PaceProblemStatements can be taken to the WG 
as-is
- PaceCategoriesFacet, PaceIntrospection, and 
PaceServerCollectionSubsets need more work here
- PaceTemplateConstruct, uh, it's complete but Rob doesn't agree?  Not 
sure.

 -Tim