Re: new iafa draft

Thomas Krichel <T.Krichel@surrey.ac.uk> Tue, 09 January 1996 00:54 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19213; 8 Jan 96 19:54 EST
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa19209; 8 Jan 96 19:54 EST
Received: from services.Bunyip.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa16304; 8 Jan 96 19:54 EST
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id TAA09442 for iafa-out; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 19:52:34 -0500
Received: from mocha.bunyip.com (mocha.Bunyip.Com [192.197.208.1]) by services.bunyip.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA09431 for <iafa@services.bunyip.com>; Mon, 8 Jan 1996 19:52:01 -0500
Received: from [131.227.102.9] by mocha.bunyip.com with SMTP (5.65a/IDA-1.4.2b/CC-Guru-2b) id AA12457 (mail destined for iafa@services.bunyip.com); Mon, 8 Jan 96 19:51:56 -0500
Received: from central.surrey.ac.uk by mailb.surrey.ac.uk with SMTP (PP); Tue, 9 Jan 1996 00:51:33 +0000
Received: by central.surrey.ac.uk (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA12456; Tue, 9 Jan 1996 00:51:31 GMT
Message-Id: <9601090051.AA12456@central.surrey.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: new iafa draft
To: Jon Knight <J.P.Knight@lut.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 1996 00:51:30 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: iafa@bunyip.com, whoispp-shema@bunyip.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.951218132006.29646T-100000@weeble.lut.ac.uk> from "Jon Knight" at Dec 18, 95 01:22:28 pm
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: Thomas Krichel <T.Krichel@surrey.ac.uk>
Reply-To: Thomas Krichel <T.Krichel@surrey.ac.uk>
X-Org.: Department of Economics, University of Surrey, Guildford GU2 5XH, UK
X-Tel.: 44-(0)1483-300800x2785, Fax: 44-(0)1483-303775, Ethnic origin: Saarland
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UK-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Length: 2016
X-Orig-Sender: owner-iafa@bunyip.com
Precedence: bulk

  On iafa@bunyip, Jon writes about his reissue of the IAFA draft:

> Keep all the comments coming in folks...

  I am writing only now since I was away over Xmas. I had a look
  at the draft tonight. There does not appear to be much change
  to the previous version. In particular, I can not find any 
  passage that addresses the critical thoughts that I communicated
  to this list under a threat "IAFA templates: a user's comment" that
  run here on 21 March 1995. In particular, I claimed that the
  templates are based on the assumption that each version is contained
  in one file, which is wrong in many practical instances when  
  encoding documents. I requested a "part" syntax. Jon then suggested
  to use the order of templates to emulate a "part" syntax. However 
  the current draft still says that that the field order does not matter. 
  Until this issue is cleared up I can see little future for the
  use of the templates. 

  In the meantime, paf wrote, in a private message:

> Now to another thing which we have deleted from the IAFA
> paper, and that is the '-v0' etc endings of the attribute
> names. Instead we are using ordering among the attributes.

  Since I collect the templates to use the whois++ protocol
  to transport my database, I am more interested in being whois++
  compliant, since that is what the software requires. However
  I have not a set of rules about how to write template-files.
  If I had those I could have a stab at my own draft "on encoding
  documents \`a la whois++". The practical experience we have 
  already gained with the WoPEc project (http://netec.wustl.edu/WoPEc.html)
  should help. However I need at least one coworker. Any takers?
  
  P.S. I am copying this message to whoispp-shema@bunyip.com,
  if that is not an appropriate list please feel free to tell me
  off :-)

  Happy New Year!



  Thomas Krichel                               mailto:T.Krichel@surrey.ac.uk
                                  http://www.surrey.ac.uk/Economics/tkrichel