Walter Underwood wrote:
--On May 5, 2005 7:17:00 AM -0400 Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Demonstrate that you have revisited the previous discussion, and that you either have something new to add, or can point out some evidence that the previous consensus call was made in error.
PaceCaching was not discussed and rejected based on false information. It was rejected because it was HTTP-specific (it is not), and because it was non-core (similar features are common in other RSS specs).
Actually, it never has been rejected. I had miscategorized it as protocol. I've fixing that now, and scheduled it for this cycle.
Sorry for the confusion.
- Sam Ruby
