Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 11:28 AM +0200 4/6/05, Henry Story wrote:
Are the "next" and "previous" links that we thought may be attachable to the feed
really too controversial to get into the final atom spec?
It doesn't matter whether or not they are "too controversial"; the spec is frozen for significant technical changes.
Unless, of course, the WG decides we really do want to open it all up again an take another probably four months of deciding what else we want to add and change. We can do that by amending our charter. So far, I have not heard consensus going towards that, but I could be wrong.
Henry,
Paul is right; also adding riders to the spec at this stage is potentially harmful because the review cycle is less substantial. My best suggestion is to write an I-D that describe the link extensions; that will be probably get more eyeballs/traction than a Pace at this stage.
cheers Bill
