On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 18:27:23 -0500, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please consider closing a bunch of link Paces per > http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg10800.html I've just been through these to try and clear up any I've been anywhere near. The following two I've updated to - "Status: Closed (superceded by PaceFieldingLinks)" PaceLinkRelUri - essentially the same as PaceFieldingLinks (but using the Atom namespace rather than registering) PaceLinkRelMechanism - earlier RFC2731/QNames version of the above There is a little overhang: these included a title attribute to provide a label - might this still be desirable with PaceFieldingLinks? There's also "rev" - might that still be useful? (I don't see the need for @type any more). LinkTagMeaning - this desperately needs refactoring. What is the status of PaceReplaceLinkElement? > > So... the process change I would like to propose is that we focus on > > reducing the amount of Paces that simply get thrown back to languish. > > And my proposal is simple: in order for a scheduled Pace to be sent > > back, at group of people - including at least one detractor - volunteer > > to work on producing a version that they can live with. > > > > Fair enough? > > Yes. Worth a try. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
