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

Re: Posted PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat

To: Atom WG <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Posted PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat
From: Bill de hÓra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 22:55:35 +0000
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: <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a1) Gecko/20040520

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 agree, but - it's arguable that dates and links are just not coherent, which makes me doubt the spec is good enough.

Note that this has not been formally placed at the front of the queue yet. -Tim

I suggest gathering some of that consensus stuff first ;)

cheers
Bill

References:
- Posted PaceDeclareVictoryOnFormat
  - From: Tim Bray

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