> PaceProfile > Changed along the way, quite a few +1's but even more -1's. A certain > amount of "+1 on concept, -1 on syntax" which doesn't help. > DISPOSITION: No consensus, close it. > > PaceProfileAttribute > No significant support. > DISPOSITION: Close it
It would be nice if folks would actually comment in detail on these. They really have not been adequately discussed. It would be helpful if those who are -1 to the idea of profiles could offer a bit more insight into their positions.
If you're +1 to the concept, but -1 to the syntax, what syntax do you think is better?
If you're -1 to the concept, why?
- If you just don't think it is necessary, fair enough
- If you just think it's not part of the core and can be added later,
fair enough, but that doesn't get around the fact that the current
spec, as written, does not allow extensions to change containment
requirements and therefore does not provide for a necessary aspect
of profile support (the ability to change containment requirements)
- If you like profiles in general, but don't like the conceptual
definition in either the PaceProfile or PaceProfileAttribute
proposals, what should be changed?- James M Snell
Tim Bray wrote:
