[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Posted PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat

To: Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Posted PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat
From: Robert Sayre <mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 17:28:23 -0500
Cc: Atom WG <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Reply-to: mint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)

Tim Bray wrote:

See http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat

The world can use Atom, sooner rather than later. The return-on-investment of further WG time invested in polishing something that's already pretty good is starting to be very unattractive. Particularly when the Protocol draft seriously needs work and progress.

I would go for it, assuming judgment on a couple things currently in the queue:

PaceFieldingLinks (people are already using their own rel values)
PaceUpdatedDefinition (2 dissenters?)

That leaves extensibility RSS2-style loose, which I don't particularly like, but I can live with it.

Also, there's PaceProvideSchema.

Robert Sayre

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Posted PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat
  - From: Danny Ayers

References:
- Posted PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat
  - From: Tim Bray

Prev by Date: Re: Posted PaceCategoryElement
Next by Date: Re: Posted PaceCategoryElement
Previous by thread: Posted PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat
Next by thread: Re: Posted PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread