Antone Roundy wrote:
On Monday, November 15, 2004, at 12:51 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
The draft doesn't list a lot of rel values because we couldn't come to consensus on them.
The API draft has a number of rel values which PaceFieldingLinks is trying to remove.
Those are already gone, per PaceMoveLinkElement. Also, I just noticed PaceLinkAttrDefaults is incorrectly listed for closure. It was accepted and is included in format-03.[0] Those two Paces took care of those values.
There's no reason to get bogged down in this discussion.
My recollection is that where we've bogged down is on discussion of whether and how to make link extensible, and that discussion of specific @rel values has simply been drowned out by that discussion. But if no one speaks up in support of "about", "start", "prev", "next" and "comment", then fine--I'll shut my mouth.
The way to do this is to write a proposal. This argument is unrelated to PaceFieldingLinks, isn't it?
Robert Sayre
[0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg10651.html
