Subject: next, previous

From: Henry Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 11:28:01 +0200

Are the "next" and "previous" links that we thought may be attachable 
to the feed
really too controversial to get into the final atom spec? They would be 
really useful
to archive feeds.

Henry Story

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:36:11 -0700

At 11:28 AM +0200 4/6/05, Henry Story wrote:
>Are the "next" and "previous" links that we thought may be 
>attachable to the feed
>really too controversial to get into the final atom spec?

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.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Bill de hÓra <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 16:45:01 +0100

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> It doesn't matter whether or not they are "too controversial"; the spec 
> is frozen for significant technical changes.
> 
> 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.

Henry,

Paul is right; also adding riders to the spec at this stage is 
potentially harmful because the review cycle is less substantial. My 
best suggestion is to write an I-D that describe the link extensions; 
that will be probably get more eyeballs/traction than a Pace at this stage.

cheers
Bill