Re: Half-way Summary (Was: Re: Draft progression)

Markus Stumpf <> Sat, 03 September 1994 00:30 UTC

Received: from by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa10003; 2 Sep 94 20:30 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa09999; 2 Sep 94 20:30 EDT
Received: from [] by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18867; 2 Sep 94 20:30 EDT
Received: by (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA22328 on Fri, 2 Sep 94 20:11:39 -0400
Received: from sifon.CC.McGill.CA by with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA22324 (mail destined for /usr/lib/sendmail -odq -oi -fiafa-request iafa-out) on Fri, 2 Sep 94 20:11:35 -0400
Received: from ( []) by sifon.CC.McGill.CA (8.6.8/8.6.6) with SMTP id UAA17150 for <>; Fri, 2 Sep 1994 20:11:30 -0400
Received: by via suspension id <326634>; Sat, 3 Sep 1994 02:11:18 +0200
Received: from unknown ([]) by with SMTP id <326570>; Sat, 3 Sep 1994 02:10:45 +0200
Received: by id <231653>; Sat, 3 Sep 1994 02:10:35 +0200
Path: stumpf
X-Orig-Sender: USENET Newssystem <>
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Markus Stumpf <>
Newsgroups: lists.iafa
Subject: Re: Half-way Summary (Was: Re: Draft progression)
Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 02:10:33 +0200
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Lines: 59
Message-Id: <348etp$>
References: <33vvgq$>
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #5 (NOV)

Martijn Koster <>; writes:

>I'd summarise agreed proposed changes to the current draft, and

Great idea, thanks!

>   - I vote for a companion RFC, to be published separately, not referenced
>     from within this draft.

A companion RFC is fine I think, but why not reference it?

>p2. Multiple records in Single Record files
>   - Removing the "single record" distinction is required in one case:
>     when two "packages" are described in separate files, and one/both of 
>     them have >1 related record (ie software, docs and mailing list devoted
>     to one software package).

I strongly vote for removing the "single record" restriction.
1) for the above reason and 2) for grouping e.g. source code, patches
and documentation for one package. About 2) I am still a bit unhappy.
If I have a  package-1.2.tar.gz  and a
I have to create two templates for it (which best go into one index file)
cause I don't think it is okay to simply use
    Template-Type:	SOFTWARE
    Title:		A software package

>   I don't see the point, Markus half likes it. It breaks existing index
>   files. Alan, what do you think?

Having slept one or two (short) nights about it, I think we should drop
the mailto: as we already call it *-Email: This IMHO implies the mailto: .

>p4. variant URI
>   - there is a problem here: Think about
>    [ ... ]

Hmmm ... do you think we should allow for more than one value to
URI-v1: e.g.?
I don't think this is a good idea ... it is unhandy, but if one wants
to have this, one has to duplicate the Format, Size and Language, too.
btw. do we also have Version: be a variant?

>p5. - Allowing HTML etc in descriptions
>   I'm against, for reasons explained before.

Agreed. I still think it would be nice, but then is someone likes
to include PostScript or MS Word format the templates will quick
become a pain and be unusable for most of us.

I'll have a look at the patch on Monday.
Have a nice weekend!

 Markus Stumpf                        Markus.Stumpf@Informatik.TU-Muenchen.DE