Saturday, May 21, 2005, 8:13:13 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> So, really, we have folks who want to delay this spec > because they think they've solved Distributed Versioning On The > Internet. This is a straw man argument. PaceDateModified2 was created to allow subscribers to determine the latest revision of an entry within a feed document. Please explain the specific issues that you believe will prevent PaceDateModified2 from meeting its goal. Tim gave some specific issues he had with atom:modified and I addressed them. I need something more than "there's no reason to expect it will work". If the proposal is as doomed as you suggest, then we will be able to drop this quickly and move on. Currently we seem to be just wasting time. > I remember Graham once tried to re-raise the atom:modified idea, and > was told that he was very close to being out-of-order. Well, it > certainly is now. Not only is it offensive, I proposed PaceAllowDuplicateIdsWithModified/PaceDateModified2 to fix a bug in PaceAllowDuplicateIDs, not to add a feature. PaceAllowDuplicateIDs is a major change to Atom. The fact that it was proposed after IETF Last Call suggests that we already had a process problem. The fact that issues have been raised with this proposal, but the debate has been curtailed on proposals to fix it suggests to me that we need another round to clear this up. -- Dave
