Robert Sayre wrote:
> Now that you've written PaceRemoveHeadElement [or, PaceHeadless]...
>(Note to Bob: it still does what you want), I think that is what
> will probably happen.
        As long as we can put the feed metadata into an Entry document or
instance of an entry I'm happy. I don't care what the tag is called. I
simply need to have an entry free and in the wild while still being able to
describe the feed from which it was cut. Atom over XMPP, aggregated feeds
ala PubSub or as search results, etc. even many forms of archiving will work
fine if PaceHeadless is accepted.

        Note: The proposal in PaceHeadless is essentially what I was
originally proposing back in the summer. (i.e. feed meta-data would be
"inherited" by entries unless that inheritance was explicitly over-ridden by
the presence of a <source-feed> or <head> element in the entry.) You may
remember that after a great deal of discussion the whole idea of hierarchy,
inheritance, and other similar metaphors was rejected as too complicated.
I'm pleased if we have now come to the conclusion that hierarchy and
"inheritance" from parent elements is a reasonable thing to specify.
However, I'm concerned that it seems like we've gotten to this point rather
casually and without as much discussion as we had when the group originally
rejected the idea. On the other hand, I think disagreed with the earlier
group consensus and think that this is where we should be. So, I won't shoot
myself in the foot by complaining any more.

                bob wyman

Reply via email to