Re: [apps-discuss] draft-wilde-xml-patch-08

Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu> Tue, 25 March 2014 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <dret@berkeley.edu>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE551A01E9 for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.211
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.211 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oAsEr-CmSxwp for <apps-discuss@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cm05fe.IST.Berkeley.EDU (cm05fe.IST.Berkeley.EDU [169.229.218.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91DFA1A01E1 for <discuss@apps.ietf.org>; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from c-50-136-167-63.hsd1.ca.comcast.net ([50.136.167.63] helo=dretpro.local) by cm05fe.ist.berkeley.edu with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (auth plain:dret@berkeley.edu) (envelope-from <dret@berkeley.edu>) id 1WSUns-0007uN-JC; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:06:22 -0700
Message-ID: <5331B78A.9000408@berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 10:06:18 -0700
From: Erik Wilde <dret@berkeley.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Tony Hansen <tony@att.com>, Apps-Discusssion <discuss@apps.ietf.org>
References: <52F00EFC.1060702@rfc-editor.org> <532C7FB6.2000203@rfc-editor.org> <5331A66A.9060505@att.com>
In-Reply-To: <5331A66A.9060505@att.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/apps-discuss/fhcXgm74u3D98aYlbF_u2SYgfgM
Cc: Nevil Brownlee <rfc-ise@rfc-editor.org>
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] draft-wilde-xml-patch-08
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 17:06:27 -0000

hello tony.

On 2014-03-25, 8:53 , Tony Hansen wrote:
> This is a review of draft-wilde-xml-patch-08.

thanks a lot for the review! i have just posted an updated version of 
the draft (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wilde-xml-patch-09), and 
here are my responses to your review:

> Actually, on rereading the abstract, I'm thinking it would be better
> expressed like the following. The primary focus of the I-D is the
> document format itself. The media type registration is a secondary
> consideration. In the following, I tried not to change your points, just
> the ordering and emphasis.

thanks for the suggestion, and i think your text is an improvement. i 
have changed the abstract as suggested.

>  >>>>Nit: More white space would be useful around the XML segments, to
> offset them more.

i agree, but that's more a problem of xml2rfc which seems to have 
problems formatting <figure><artwork> properly. for now, i'll leave it 
as it is (since the XML source is correct), and then this can be 
addressed in the final production stage.

>  >>>>Minor: I STILL feel that section 2.2 would read better if it shows
> a before and after example of applying the principle described there.

i have added the examples as suggested, showing all three documents 
(target document, patch document, result document). the patch document 
is a bit different than the one shown in RFC 5261, because it uses a 
different document element and a namespace.

>  >>>>Nit: Appendix A
> "It described" => "It describes"
>  >>>>Nit: Appendix A.1
> "XMPL Patch" => "XML Patch"

fixed.

>  >>>>Minor. Appendix C
> There needs to be a pointer to the ABNF spec, RFC 5234, where things
> like DIGIT and DQUOTE are defined.

i have added a reference to RFC 5234, and added a sentence pointing out 
that DIGIT and DQUOTE are used as defined there.

thanks again and cheers,

dret.

-- 
erik wilde | mailto:dret@berkeley.edu  -  tel:+1-510-2061079 |
            | UC Berkeley  -  School of Information (ISchool) |
            | http://dret.net/netdret http://twitter.com/dret |