Re: Rough consensus on PaceElementOrder?

[Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx>]

Sounds like a plan. I'm not crazy about "feedinfo", but can't think of 
something to replace it.



On Jul 12, 2004, at 10:41 AM, Tim Bray wrote:

> I think that we are approaching rough consensus on PaceElementOrder, 
> like so:
>
> 1. I think we clearly have consensus that the feed-level elements 
> should all appear before the <atom:entry> elements.
>
> 2. I think we have probably have good-enough rough consensus that it's 
> worthwhile grouping all the non-entry stuff in an <atom:feedinfo> or 
> some such, so that the content model for <atom:feed> is something like
>
>   atom:feedinfo, atom:entry*
>
> The cost of doing this seems effectively zero and there are some 
> detectable advantages.
>
> 3. There has been some discussion around the notion that there are 
> some feed-level things that are really mostly about providing defaults 
> for the <atom:entries>, with the consequent suggestion that maybe they 
> deserve their own top-level element, with further digressions into 
> doing defaulting by reference rather than by inheritance.  I do not 
> detect consensus in these discussions (in fact I'm not convinced that 
> it's been demonstrated that there things that are have pure 
> entry-default as opposed to feed-metadata semantics).
>
> SO: I propose that rather than tear this one apart any further, we ask 
> the editors to, in the -01 drafts, recast the data format with the 
> <atom:feedinfo> element (anyone should feel free to suggest a better 
> name than "feedinfo"), and that those who care about defaulting cook 
> up a Pace or three outlining specifically what the options are.  -Tim

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/