Re: Fwd: Last Call: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard (draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread)

[James M Snell <[e-mail]>]

Ned Freed wrote:
>> FYI -- this is an individual submission yet intended for Proposed
>> Standard, so input is most welcome.
> 
> I have a couple of comments, all minor.
> 

Thank you for taking the time.

>[snip]
>   The "in-reply-to" element is used to indicate that an entry is a
>   response to another resource. The element MUST contain either or both the
>   "ref" and "href" attributes.
> 

Yes, this makes sense. Also, I am changing this definition making ref
required in all cases.

> Now, I have a lot more experience with XML Schema than with Relax NG so 
> maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the Relax NG definition seems to say
> that the source attribute can only appear when the ref attribute is present
> and the type attribute can only appear when the href attribute is present.
> But this isn't spelled out in the (normative) text. How about adding
> "When the ref attribute is present" before "The 'source' attribute ..." and
> "When the href attribute is present" before "The 'type' attribute ..."?
> 

Yes.  I'll make the change.

> Finally, the document seems a bit short on specifics of how the 
> in-reply-to element is actually used. Although the underlying semantic
> model here seems to be simpler than email's in-reply-to/references scheme
> (a good thing IMO), perhaps some words about whether you need to list just
> the parent(s) and not the grandparent(s) would be in order. There
> were certainly differences of opinion about this in the days of RFC 822
> which RFC 2822 section 3.6.4 cleared up.
> 

I will take another look at 2822 and see if I can strike the right balance.

> That's it!
> 

Thanks again.

> 				Ned
> 
>