On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 19:40:51 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > >> No consensus to reject it either. Doesn't that mean it should go back > >> on the revisit list? > >> (In my estimation it only swerved around inclusion because of the > >> chair lying in the road). > > I think it's a terrible idea, and entirely useless if optional. There > were plenty of technical objections to the Pace.
I think it's a brilliant idea and think Atom will be hobbled without it. There was support from quite a few people (around 50%?). No-one explained how the straightforward use cases I provided could be dealt with using atom:updated alone. Like I said, no consensus. I don't think that means it should be rejected. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
