Re: ISSUE 86 and removing atom transform section - focusing

On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 1:40 AM, Sam Ruby <> wrote:
> I happen to believe that if everybody in this working group is allowed to
> hold up even one issue per person until we are close to declaring Last Call,
> we will never get to Last Call.
> I will encourage the co-chairs to push forward with steps that will produce
> either an amicable resolution or a decision as soon as the discussion stops
> providing new information.
> As for me, I can live with either of the following:
> I could also live with the following, should it make it into a change
> proposal:
> I also would endorse any change proposal which splits Atom generation into a
> separate spec, should one such change proposal be written.

Sorry; I agree with the sentiment, but don't think that this falls
into that bucket.  I'm not holding something up "until Last Call", I'm
holding it up because I think it can be resolved in a better way, and
there is active discussion underway involving that resolution.  My
sentiment was just that I'm willing to give it up, even with that
discussion, if you guys think we're otherwise close to LC.

So, rather than "can we delay resolving this until it becomes a
problem", I'm saying "I'm okay with cutting resolution short if it
becomes a problem".


Received on Saturday, 17 April 2010 15:46:17 UTC