Hmm, I've been a little distracted, but I thought
PaceExtensionConstruct did get a reasonable amount of support.
+1 from me anyway.
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 11:12:48 -0800, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Methodology: Paul I went through *all* the WG emails that directly
commented on the
On Tuesday, February 15, 2005, at 07:29PM, Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PaceClarifyDateUpdated
A couple of -1's, one fuzzy +1.
DISPOSITION: Close it.
Where'd you get this idea? I see two +1s:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13249.html
Tim Bray wrote:
PaceExtensionConstruct
One -1, 1.5 +1's.
DISPOSITION: Not enough support, close it.
PaceHeadless
Lots of talk, more -1's than +1's.
DISPOSITION: No consensus, close it.
PaceLangSpecific
Not a lot of discussion, but pretty positive.
DISPOSITION: Borderline, but accepted.
These
PaceProfile
Changed along the way, quite a few +1's but even more -1's. A certain
amount of +1 on concept, -1 on syntax which doesn't help.
DISPOSITION: No consensus, close it.
PaceProfileAttribute
No significant support.
DISPOSITION: Close it
It would be nice if folks would actually
Tim Bray wrote:
On Feb 15, 2005, at 11:52 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
PaceLinkEnclosure
A little bit of support, but with reservations.
DISPOSITION: A messy Pace and not enough support, close it.
You're kidding, right? I can already here the chants. OMG ATOM
DOESN'T DO PODCASTING LOL
Uh, we already
Tim Bray wrote:
PaceXhtmlNamespaceDiv
This is tough. There are some people who are really against this and
who aren't moving. On the other hand, there are way more who are in
favor. Reviewing the discussion, the contras are saying that this is
sloppy and unnecessary and if it solves a
