Re: Yet another version of the draft

[Martijn Koster <[e-mail]>]

> 1. [...]
> 2. [...]
> 4. [...]

Fixed.

> 3.       You changed the wording below to acommodate the word "Details"
> which I think should have been "Date" in the first place. ie - Date record
> was last maintained.

Hmm, I wanted to indicate it's not just the date, but also contact
details.

How about "Details describing when the record was last maintained,
and by whom" ?

> Hope this helps :-)

Yup, Thanks; all comments more than welcome.

[no sooner had I said this and even more comments arrived :-) ]

> I've just discovered that I'd somehow been dropped off the iafa mailing
> list around the start of the year 

Bummer. I wondered where all the original crowd had gone.

> and that there had been some revisions of the internet draft since
> then. (Only some of which had been announced - and therefore I'd
> seen.)

We wanted to at least agree on the list before fixing a new revision.

> Having said that - registration of template types poses other problems.

I agree that registration is an issue, and probably required. But as
it is a hairy subject I wonder if we can address it in a separate
document?

> o       I agree that there needs to be a way to insert comments. This is
> for several reasons:

OK

> o       A few of the typos:

All fixed.

> o       3.3 item 7) Blank is defined as octal 40 - fine (that's the way I
> think of it) but the URI docs etc tend to talk in hex

OK, changed to hex. 

> o       3.3 item 10) I still think "latitude and longitude" is a bit
> pretentious.

Can you elaborate?

> o       3.6.2   Not sure why we need organisation-postal *and*
> organisation-city, -state, -country.

Hmmm. The -{city,state,country} are nice as search constraints for
resources, we do need those. At the same time you may want to display
"Contact $postal" and be done with it. We can either leave it, or suggest
Postal shouldn't include city, state, or country. Any thoughts?

> o       Examples:
> 
>         Sally suggested that names be "Lastname, first names". If this is
> agreed - the examples would need changing.

Has anyone else got any strong desires/arguments either way?
I personally always think it looks silly, and am not convinced
sorting is always important.

> That's it for now. Nice work Martijn, Alan and Markus.

Thanks for the comments, keep them comming.

-- Martijn
__________
Internet: [e-mail]
X-400: C=GB; A= ; P=Nexor; O=Nexor; S=koster; I=M
X-500: c=GB@o=NEXOR Ltd@cn=Martijn Koster
WWW: http://web.nexor.co.uk/mak/mak.html