- From: Michael Kifer <kifer@cs.sunysb.edu>
- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 02:28:00 -0400
- To: Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:34:47 -0400 Chris Welty <cawelty@gmail.com> wrote: > > > At the F2F we had a lengthy but ultimately inconclusive discussion on what to > allow in an external call: > > 1) ATOM > 2) ATOMIC > 3) ATOM | FRAME > > In a straw poll, one person objected to each choice, and there were 3, 6, and 2 > people resp. who preferred each choice. I remember that csma did retract his objections to (3). > While more people prefer choice 2, it would require re-doing last call. 1&3 > would not, as 1 is covered by external frames being at-risk, and 3 is the way > the spec reads now. I think we should do what is right and the LC consideration is not very important, if the change is relatively simple (which is what will be in this case). I think the right thing to do is Atomic-Equal|Frame Why minus Equal? In principle equality does not matter here, but one should realize that External(a=b) does not imply a=b. So, I am afraid that some people will be confused. But maybe this is a non-issue. I think the LC thing will need to be redone anyway, because of the problem with the External primitive, which we discussed: it should really have the remote site's IRI as an additional argument. --michael > Let's try and come to some sort of closure by email. >
Received on Tuesday, 7 October 2008 06:28:38 UTC