Antone Roundy wrote:
-1 also. I think we'd do better to focus on the specification text for id - that will be much more effective than adding qualifying text. I think it falls under editorial work and requires no pace.I have no idea what you mean by this comment.
I mean this:
1. I believe the editors can and will fix the specification text to be more precise.
2. I believe 1 does not require a pace.
Part of the purpose of the Pace does seek to improve on the specification text for id (see the abstract, and compare the proposed text to the current draft) for the benefit of those who don't think it's perfectly clear if you don't refuse to keep reading after the first sentence. Do you think the proposed change doesn't help? If not, how about a counter suggestion or at least something more concrete than "...that will be much more effective than adding qualifying text. I think it falls under editorial work and requires no pace.">
Do you not think that we need to specify whether or not multiple instances of a resource can appear in a single document (with the same atom:id)?
You don't know how far I've read into the pace, and asking me loaded or presumptive questions won't persuade me to change my mind.
cheers Bill
