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

[Tony Hansen <[e-mail]>]

Wow, fast response. :-)

One nit in the abstract, which turns out to be my fault in my previously 
suggested text:

    This specification defines the also provides
    the media type registration "application/xml-patch+xml", to allow the
to
    This specification >>><<< also provides
    the media type registration "application/xml-patch+xml", to allow the
or
    This specification >>><<< also defines
    the media type registration "application/xml-patch+xml", to allow the

This one can be fixed in AUTH48 if necessary.

Everything else looks fine with me.

     Tony

On 3/25/14, 1:06 PM, Erik Wilde wrote:
> 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.
>