Robert Sayre wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Content remains optional.
The pace did not drop the requirement for a link element in the absence of content.
OK, I missed that. What else did I miss at this late date?
As it stands, this Pace declares co-constraints bad, selectively removes a few co-constraints, and leaves others, with little rhyme or reason.
Am I misreading the Pace? The abstract seems clear enough...
While I agree with your recent statement that "no one has spoken up in favor of the current text", I resonate more with Paul's recent statement[1] that:
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.
I wrote a Pace that inserted seven words and only changed one element, feeling that we might be able to come to an agreement on that. This appears to have been a tactical error...
Strawmen are usually tactical errors.
It was a serious proposal. And if it results in a clear consensus around PaceFeedIdOrSelf, then it was useful.
If, instead, it opens the door for multiple changes without explicit rationale; at the last minute; overturning carefully formed consensus; then it was not.
My order of preference:
PaceFeedIdOrAlternate PaceFeedIdOrSelf Current Text PaceCoConstraintsAreBad
"no one has spoken up in favor of the current text" remains true.
I am willing to go with PaceFeedIdOrSelf. A number of people have expressed support for it. I don't know if it meets a threshold or not - at the moment the bar is pretty high. And the number of active proposals is troublesome.
I've marked PaceIdOrAlternate withdrawn.
I remain -1 on PaceCoConstraintsAreBad.
Robert Sayre
- Sam Ruby
