On Monday, November 15, 2004, at 01:40 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
Antone Roundy wrote:Scheduled to be gone from the API spec, yes, but considering that Pace alone, moved into the format spec.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]Ay carumba! Tim did in fact make that call, and nobody objected. Okay. For my part, I'm on the "we shoulda kept 'em in" side of the lack of consensus, but if nobody else cares, I'm not going to continue to fight for the cause. I would have appreciated seeing specific arguments against each...which I don't THINK I ever saw.
[0] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg10651.html
