Tim Bray wrote:
PaceExtensionConstruct One -1, 1.5 +1's. DISPOSITION: Not enough support, close it.
PaceHeadless Lots of talk, more -1's than +1's. DISPOSITION: No consensus, close it.
PaceLangSpecific Not a lot of discussion, but pretty positive. DISPOSITION: Borderline, but accepted.
These three are tied together. Note that the second half of PaceHeadless is basically the same idea as PaceExtensionConstruct, and all of the objections to PaceHeadless centered around the name "feeder" and two -1s wrt to removing Atom head. Also, I count more +1s than -1s. PaceLangSpecific is pretty pointless without PaceExtensionConstruct, and so is the RDF mapping the chairs would supposedly take on as a product of this WG.
PaceLinkEnclosure A little bit of support, but with reservations. DISPOSITION: A messy Pace and not enough support, close it.
You're kidding, right? I can already here the chants. "OMG ATOM DOESN'T DO PODCASTING LOL"
Robert Sayre
