<rant>
Um.. fundamental problem with all of this talk about rAPP: last two
sentences, first paragraph:
"This document may not be modified, and *derivative works of it may not
be created*. This document may only be posted in an Internet-Draft."
(emphasis added)
And the explanation given on Robert's blog: "This is to prevent the
working group from using the same words that I do, and then completely
mangling the definition, which is a chronic habit of theirs"
(http://www.franklinmint.fm/blog/archives/000485.html)
In other words, Robert has disallowed the working group from building
off his ideas even tho many of those ideas were developed as a result of
conversations held in this forum. Anything the working group produces
that incorporates ideas from Robert's draft if a "derivative work" which
is expressly forbidden. This is completely silly as has been the vast
majority of this groups activity of the past few weeks.
I personally believe that the -05 draft has *significant* problems.
There isn't a single part of the document that I wouldn't love to see
changed. I flirted with the idea of doing what Robert did and going off
and writing my own version of the draft but to do so would be silly. I
highly recommend that Robert recast his draft as a series of Pace's that
can be discussed and voted on as individual incremental improvements.
If Robert doesn't think that such a process would work, then he should
work with the chairs on coming up with a new process that a majority of
us can agree upon. If he does not want to do that, then he should
rename his draft to something other than "Atom" and proceed on his own.
</rant>
- James
Robert Sayre wrote:
On 10/25/05, Joe Gregorio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But this did give me an idea on how to simplify
the verbage in -05 by taking all the talk of Media and Entry collections
The WG draft doesn't have Media collections, but APP-Basic does.
Robert Sayre
