Subject: The Atom namespace

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:23:00 +0200

Hi,

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.txt
defines "http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" as namespace for the Atom format.
Is this really a good choice considering that most of the similar W3C
namespaces use different casing, e.g.

  http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml 
  http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink 
  http://www.w3.org/2000/svg 
  http://www.w3.org/2001/vxml 
  http://www.w3.org/2001/xml-events 
  http://www.w3.org/2002/xforms 
  http://www.w3.org/2004/xbl
  ...

Though I guess it's to late now to change this...
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 21:37:47 +0200

Hi,

  I think it would be helpful if section 8 ("Security Considerations")
of the latest draft includes a reference to section 5 "Securing Atom
Documents".

regards,

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:58:50 -0700

>Though I guess it's to late now to change this...

It is indeed. Given that only developers will be typing this in, and 
they will probably be copying-and-pasting, this seems like a really 
minor issue, not worth delaying over.

>of the latest draft includes a reference to section 5 "Securing Atom

This is rarely done in RFCs. Further, Section 5 is clearly listed in 
the table of contents, and someone who intends to implement the 
protocol probably has at least skimmed the document before they read 
the details in the Security Considerations section.

And, the two Security Area Directors have signed off on the Security 
Considerations section in -10.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 13:14:27 -0700

On Jul 14, 2005, at 12:58 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:

>
> And, the two Security Area Directors have signed off on the  
> Security Considerations section in -10.

Which is to say, we need one more sign-off and a couple of  
bureaucratic buttons pushed, and Atom will be an IETF "proposed  
standard", and we can all start telling the world, loudly.  (It'll be  
a while, months perhaps, before we get an RFC number, but that turns  
out not to matter).  I'd prefer to wait until we have those sign-offs  
and those button-pushes before we get too excited, because Things Can  
Go Wrong.  -Tim

---

From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:06:34 +0200

>the details in the Security Considerations section.

Well, I think the lack of detail in 8.5 is confusing and adding a "(see
section 5)" in auth48 would improve the legibility of the document; such
cross-references are not uncommon in long RFCs either, but I do not feel
strongly about this.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:[email-masked] · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:36:57 -0700

FYI... I've deployed a working prototype of the comments link relation 
extension on my personal weblog.

http://www.snellspace.com/wp/wp-atom1.php
http://www.snellspace.com/wp/wp-commentsatom1.php

The @rel attributes use the values:
  http://www.snellspace.com/atom/extensions/proposed/comments
  http://www.snellspace.com/atom/extensions/proposed/in-reply-to

comments is usable on the feed and entry level.  Entry level comment 
links indicate a comments feed that is specific to that individual 
entry.  The @href of the comments is the URI of an atom feed.

in-reply-to is usable on the feed and entry level.  in-reply-to on the 
feed level indicates that all of the entries in the feed are replies to 
the same entry.  A feed or entry may have multiple in-reply-to links.  
The @href attribute of the in-reply-to link is the atom:id of the 
original entry. 

- James