Re: Call for censensus on path forward

>>>>> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 10:51:32 -0400, "Glenn Waters" <[email protected]> said:

Glenn> The working group needs to come to consensus around which
Glenn> problems that should be solved and which of the solutions below
Glenn> best addresses those problems.
...
Glenn> I will announce the summary of the consensus call one week from
Glenn> today (Monday, September 23) *unless* there is still active
Glenn> discussion which would preclude being able to make a reasonable
Glenn> decision at that time.

The deadline is coming up rather fast, and I think we should be
hearing more voices of people that have read the drafts (authors
excluded, we know what you'd (we'd) vote for).  This WG greatly needs
to hear the opinions of interested parties if any work is to go
forward.

Personally, I've read all the drafts and there is good merit in all of
them.  Obviously, I'm biased toward the solution which I think is
right (mine, of course ;-) but all the drafts are well worth reading.

I decided personally to leave out logic expressions from the filtering
in my draft solely because I didn't want to complicate the agent
processing any further.  David Perkin's has logical expressions in his
draft (&& || ...) and I'm very interested in hearing whether people
think this is a good thing or a bad thing, as it's a question I've
been meaning to ask the WG but was waiting until after a direction was
picked.  (I'd add logical expressions in a different manner than David
did, but it's the concept I'm curious if people want or not.
Currently, my draft has an implicit AND operation on all filtering
components).

-- 
"The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will
 insist on coming along and trying to put things in it."   -- Terry Pratchett