Re: [xml-dir] Re: Fwd: Last Call: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard (draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread)
Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com> Sun, 21 May 2006 02:14 UTC
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FhdSj-0002YQ-VF; Sat, 20 May 2006 22:14:33 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FhdSi-0002YF-3o for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sat, 20 May 2006 22:14:32 -0400
Received: from [206.117.180.234] (helo=mauve.mrochek.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FhdSg-0007xo-Me for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sat, 20 May 2006 22:14:32 -0400
Received: from dkim-sign.mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01M2NMIB3CUO00967V@mauve.mrochek.com> for discuss@apps.ietf.org; Sat, 20 May 2006 19:14:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nowsp; d=mrochek.com; s=mauve; t=1148177662; h=Date: From:Subject:MIME-version:Content-type; b=pGz0mgmwJCOTYBrLf9HJBxezP l+pzUD7R5/DSgpZ0nlaCIkm1LQcggdeFOD05+OeUl1ZCke+eF8sdKbSgfNEHg==
Received: from mauve.mrochek.com by mauve.mrochek.com (PMDF V6.1-1 #35243) id <01M2N1EPP25C0008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>; Sat, 20 May 2006 19:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
To: James M Snell <jasnell@gmail.com>
Message-id: <01M2NMI8J3NS0008CX@mauve.mrochek.com>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 19:13:48 -0700
From: Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>
Subject: Re: [xml-dir] Re: Fwd: Last Call: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard (draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread)
In-reply-to: "Your message dated Wed, 17 May 2006 17:59:26 -0700" <446BC6EE.9000902@gmail.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="UTF-8"
References: <01M2JCJVC2TG0008CX@mauve.mrochek.com> <446BC6EE.9000902@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336
Cc: discuss@apps.ietf.org, atom-protocol@imc.org, Ned Freed <ned.freed@mrochek.com>, xml-dir@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: discuss@apps.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: general discussion of application-layer protocols <discuss.apps.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:discuss@apps.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>, <mailto:discuss-request@apps.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: discuss-bounces@apps.ietf.org
> 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. Good - I think that makes even more sense. > > 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. Sounds good. Ned
- Fwd: Last Call: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Pr… Lisa Dusseault
- Re: Fwd: Last Call: 'Atom Threading Extensions' t… Ned Freed
- Re: Fwd: Last Call: 'Atom Threading Extensions' t… James M Snell
- Re: [xml-dir] Re: Fwd: Last Call: 'Atom Threading… Ned Freed