On 10/15/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 15, 2005, at 9:06 AM, Robert Sayre wrote: > > > On 10/15/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> A major omission from both drafts is the pub:control stuff. That's > >> going to be critical for a lot of stuff. > >> > > > > The pub:control stuff was defined over the objections lots of folks, > > PacePubControl was rejected,
Yes, but PaceCollectionControl was accepted (see issues list). I don't dispute your reading of consensus, I just want to hear the technical reasons for this stuff. > mostly because of disagreements about > the payload, but I believe we did have consensus on > > (a) a wrapper for this stuff being appropriate I agree with what Ezra Cooper wrote: http://www.imc.org/atom-protocol/mail-archive/msg01221.html > (b) a boolean <draft>yes|no</draft> Right. > (c) a boolean <significant>yes|no</draft> PaceInsignificantUpdate is still on the issues list. You don't need it in my draft because you're allowed to change atom:updated and the server can order the entries as it sees fit. Robert Sayre
