Subject: Status of draft-ietf-atompub-format

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 11:42:56 +0100

Hi,

apparently, the new draft (06) wasn't finished in time for submission 
before the meeting cutoff.

As this draft is the one that's supposed to be submitted for publication 
(at least that's my understanding), wouldn't it make a lot of sense to 
make the current edits available for review (*before* it is committed 
after the end of the IETF meeting)?

Best regards, Julian

-- 
<green/>bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2005 11:15:44 -0600

At 11:42 AM +0100 3/6/05, Julian Reschke wrote:
>apparently, the new draft (06) wasn't finished in time for 
>submission before the meeting cutoff.

Correct.

>As this draft is the one that's supposed to be submitted for 
>publication (at least that's my understanding), wouldn't it make a 
>lot of sense to make the current edits available for review 
>(*before* it is committed after the end of the IETF meeting)?

Your assumption is completely wrong. The WG will review the next 
draft before passing on to the IETF. The timing of the IETF meeting 
is completely inconsequential.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 19:10:32 +0100

Paul Hoffman wrote:
>> publication (at least that's my understanding), wouldn't it make a lot 
>> of sense to make the current edits available for review (*before* it 
>> is committed after the end of the IETF meeting)?
> 
> 
> Your assumption is completely wrong. The WG will review the next draft 
> before passing on to the IETF. The timing of the IETF meeting is 
> completely inconsequential.

OK, thanks for the clarification.

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 04:38:47 +0000

> completely inconsequential.

Can you fill us in on what's happening with the new draft, and what are 
future timetable looks like?

Graham

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:16:11 -0500

> future timetable looks like?

The draft has been submitted. We should be getting an I-D Announce 
message soon.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:52:26 +0100

Robert Sayre wrote:
>> Can you fill us in on what's happening with the new draft, and what 
>> are future timetable looks like?
> 
> 

OK, here are some preliminary comments based on what's available from 
<http://www.atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html>:

- the RNC grammar is still unusable in that TRANG rejects the Schematron 
extensions; what do I need in addition to TRANG/JING to actually use 
that file?

- after removing the Schematron extensions: the RNC still is broken 
(missing double quotes after '"text')

- (after fixing that as well): atomPlainTextConstruct and 
atomXHTMLTextConstruct still use uppercased type names (in the collected 
RNC)

- the current RNC doesn't check for xhtml:div content below XHTML text 
constructs.

I've updated my experimental atom-06 feed at 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/webdav.atom>. Feedback appreciated...

Best regards, Julian

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:31:22 -0500

> <http://www.atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html>:

Julian, you "hacker"! You'll never get into Harvard Business School now.

> extensions; what do I need in addition to TRANG/JING to actually use 

Norm has mentioned simplifying the schema in the past. I'll defer to him 
here.

> - the current RNC doesn't check for xhtml:div content below XHTML text 

These mistakes are mine. I promise to check the schema after every edit 
next time.

Robert Sayre