Subject: Broken RELAX NG Grammar in Appendix B of draft-06

From: Norman Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:47:55 -0500

FYI:

There are several problems with the RELAX NG Grammar in Appendix B.
Most have to do with line-wrapping (which doesn't work in exactly the
obvious way in the compact syntax) but there's also a missing double
quote in atomInlineTextContent and the definition of atomId has lost
some content.

I'll provide a new version for 06 that is formatted for 72 column wide
pages.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <[email-masked]> | Mountains appear more lofty the nearer
http://nwalsh.com/            | they are approached, but great men
                              | resemble them not in this
                              | particular.--Lady Blessington

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:56:27 -0500

> quote in atomInlineTextContent and the definition of atomId has lost

These are all my mistakes. One question: Julian has repeatedly had 
problems with the schematron parts. Is this related to the 
line-wrapping? If not, I'm kind of worried that someone like Julian 
couldn't make it work.

> I'll provide a new version for 06 that is formatted for 72 column wide

Thank you very much, the group really appreciates it.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Norman Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 15:15:39 -0500

/ Robert Sayre <[email-masked]> was heard to say:
| Norman Walsh wrote:
|> FYI:
|> There are several problems with the RELAX NG Grammar in Appendix B.
|> Most have to do with line-wrapping (which doesn't work in exactly the
|> obvious way in the compact syntax) but there's also a missing double
|> quote in atomInlineTextContent and the definition of atomId has lost
|> some content.
|
| These are all my mistakes. One question: Julian has repeatedly had
| problems with the schematron parts. Is this related to the
| line-wrapping? If not, I'm kind of worried that someone like Julian
| couldn't make it work.

The line wrapping breaks everything, so maybe. I'll make sure I test
them again before I send another version of the schema. None of the
validators I use most frequently actually test the Schematron
assertions. :-/

|> I'll provide a new version for 06 that is formatted for 72 column
|> wide
|> pages.
|
| Thank you very much, the group really appreciates it.

My pleasure.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <[email-masked]> | What good is a can of worms if you
http://nwalsh.com/            | never open it?--Bob Arning

---

From: David Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:47:54 +0000

I noticed another bug in the RNG. The collected RNG is missing a '?'
after atomIcon:

> atomSourceFeed =
>    element atom:source-feed {
>       atomCommonAttributes,
>       (  atomTitle
>       & atomUpdated
>       & atomLink+
>       & atomIcon

should be:

> atomSourceFeed =
>    element atom:source-feed {
>       atomCommonAttributes,
>       (  atomTitle
>       & atomUpdated
>       & atomLink+
>       & atomIcon?

-- 
Dave

---

From: David Powell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:56:30 +0000

Two more things I've just noticed:

PersonConstructs aren't currently allowing extension elements.

anyForeignAttribute and anyForeignElement are currently not
used anywhere.

-- 
Dave

---

From: Julian Reschke <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:47:44 +0100

> anyForeignAttribute and anyForeignElement are currently not

Proposal for test procedure:

- please publish an updated RNC file somewhere (on atomsub.org?)

- those who already produce experimental atom-06 feeds, please check 
them with that RNC

(my test feeds are <http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/webdav.atom> and 
<http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/webdav-ietf.atom>)

Best regards, Julian

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

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 12:52:52 -0500

Julian Reschke wrote:

> - those who already produce experimental atom-06 feeds, please check them with that RNC 

Since Norm has offered to rework the RNC, we can use that. I'd be happy 
to host the RNC on atompub.org, but anywhere should be fine.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 15:30:08 -0500

> anyForeignAttribute and anyForeignElement are currently not

The second point reflects a problem with the draft. I noticed this while 
writing it, but figured the WG needed to spot it.

   "The atom:entry element MAY contain any namespace-qualified
    [W3C.REC-xml-names-19990114] elements as children."

Ok, but does that imply foreign content is not allowed elsewhere? I 
suggest the WG did not intend for that to be the case, the sentence from 
6.4 more accurately reflects WG opinion:

   "Atom allows foreign markup anywhere in an Atom document. Child
    elements of atom:entry and atom:feed are considered "metadata"
    elements, and are described below. Child elements of Person
    Constructs are considered to apply to the construct. The role of
    other foreign markup is undefined by this specification."

My personal view was that Person constructs should not define the 
meaning of foreign content, but the WG clearly favored it.

Robert Sayre

---

From: Brett Lindsley <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 07:19:29 -0600

I know this discussion has occured before, but I would like to revisit
the question of why an atom:feed MUST contain at least one atom:link
element with a relation of "alternate" (-06 4.1.1).

The defintition of the alternate representation is it "identifes an 
alternate
version of the resource" (Sec 4.2.9.2). However, is it realistic to believe
that *every* feed has an alternate version?

This becomes even more confusing if one considers the possibility of
branching out using service.feed to filtered, searched or aggregated
views. One would expect the link to have an alternate representation of
the filtered, searched or aggregated feed as well.

I have seen some examples where a home page was used for all of the
alternate representations. Is a home page really an alternate 
representation?
Putting a home page in feeds that are filtered or aggregated versions
is also misleading because the home page would most likely not be an
alternate representation of the filtered/aggregated feed.

I can also think of situations where a server hosts feeds that do not have
an alternate representation nor have a home page. In this case, why
have a required link that serves no useful purpose.

Why isn't this requirement a "may" instead of a "must"? I can see having
a link with rel=alternate if indeed a alternate version does exist. It 
does not
make sense to put in some something misleading if an alternate does not
exist.

Brett Lindsley, Motorola Labs

---

From: Henry Story <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:17:21 +0200

+1

I think it makes a lot less sense for a feed than it does for an entry.

Henry