On 11/5/05, James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Luke said: > >> Consensus *appears* to be leaning towards keeping pub:control > >> and pub:draft. > > I think some may be coming around on draft. A > > little more discussion may prove fruitful. > > > > Control is misleading cruft but no one seems to > > care. :( > > > Heh.. ok, how about "Consensus *appears* to be leaning towards debating > this some more" ;-) ;-) >
I hope so. I feel very strongly that we are making a mistake with this. > >>Error response > >> * I am proposing refinements to the existing Success/Failure text > >> and hoping to stimulate more discussion about error response > >> requirements > >> * http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceBetterHttpResponseCode > >> (snell) > > Rob has a draft with an hError format that I think > > we should look at. > > > Yep, and I've also seen suggestions for using atom:entry for error > responses. It would be great if we could get some Pace's submitted for > this. I honestly do not care what format is used so long as I can > extract a human readable description of the error from it. > +1 to that. > >> * Luke Arno wants to use XHTML for Introspection. Last we heard, > >> a new version of the pace was in development. > >> * http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceXHTMLIntrospection2 > >> (arno) > > I have withdrawn this. Half way through creating a new > Ok. The wiki page does not appear to indicate the Withdrawn status. > I should confess that I just remembered to withdraw it this morning. Sorry. - Luke > > >>Invalid Atom / atom:id handling > >> * To avoid posting syntactically invalid Atom, Luke is suggesting the > >> use of a dummy atom:id used to signal the server to create a new > >> atom:id > >> * http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceMagicId (arno) > > I withdrew this. This was put up for discussion and > Ah, missed that on the wiki page. Sorry about that. > > - James > >
