Robert Sayre wrote:
On 5/21/05, Bill de h�ra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I also scanned the archives and found no consensus.
I can point you to many discussions surrounding atom:author.
Thanks for the offer, but I've already done that for myself. I don't
much care for the number of discussions, I care about this specification
and whether it has consensus. Can you find one discussion that addresses
cardinality? Most of the ones I saw when I grepped through the
archives seemed to focus on feed/entry inheritance.
Here's one:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13793.html
The requirement made it through nine drafts, much discussion, and two
last calls. I don't think you have a consensus argument.
If you don't think I have a consensus argument, you should be able to
demonstrate that by pointing me at consensus.
Look. I understand the process more or less says we're done, I read
Paul's mail, and as the editor I do appreciate your sentiments and
opinion on this.
If there is consensus and I missed it, I'll withdraw and apologise for
distracting the WG. If an IETF process wizard says it's too late now,
technically or in the spirit of things, I'll withdraw. If the WG makes
it known that at this point in the process, I have to like them apples,
we're shipping, I'll withdraw. Otherwise as a WG member I'm of the
opinion that letting a specification get through that has no consensus,
and that we know has no consensus, is irresponsible.
cheers
Bill
