Subject: Editorial comments on draft-ietf-atompub-format-00

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:13:22 -0700

Do we agree that it's OK to batch up editorial comments like this?

[Page 5/sect 2] Did we agree to deprecate Processing Instructions?  I 
believe not, and this is in conflict with RFC3470, and should be 
removed as an editorial correction.  Unless someone can show me how 
this somehow represents consensus based on earlier discussion.

[Page 5/sect 2] I would suggest, per 3470, that the language saying 
Atom should/may/whatever contain DOCTYPES, PIs, and comments is 
superfluous.

[Page 5, sect 2] I think the paragraph about xml:lang should have a 
reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag

[Page 6, sect 3.1.2] the discussion of "escaped" needs a reference to 
what kind of unescaping you're talking about: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dt-escape

[Page 7, sect 3.2.2] "atom:url" has to go as an element name.  Either 
"uri" or "web" would be a satisfactory replacement, but since there is 
no in-effect normative text describing what "url" stands for, it's 
really not appropriate.  Same for 4.9 and anywhere else "url" appears.

[page 11, sect 4.12].  Is the text about "xml:lang" here useful, or 
does the discussion above make it superfluous?

[page 12, sect 4.13.1]  I don't think the "title" of a Web Resource is 
a well-defined construct.  It certainly doesn't appear in Web 
architecture.  If you mean "is the same as the contents of the <title> 
element in the case where HTML representations are typically made 
available..." then that's fine.  Or (better) just lose it.

[page 13, sect 4.13.9] Typo in "atom:summary", it says "MAY contain an 
atom:created" you mean "MAY contain an atom:summary"

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 01:40:00 +0200

> Do we agree that it's OK to batch up editorial comments like this?

I, for one, think it's very nice, if one of the intentions is for the rest  
of the list to comment on them.

> [Page 5/sect 2] Did we agree to deprecate Processing Instructions?

FWIW: I've not agreed to that.

> [Page 5/sect 2] I would suggest, per 3470, that the language saying Atom  
> should/may/whatever contain DOCTYPES, PIs, and comments is superfluous.

+1.

> reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag

+1.

> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dt-escape

+1.

> really not appropriate.  Same for 4.9 and anywhere else "url" appears.

I had the feel that current consensus was to replace <url> with <link>, at  
least until we agree on what to do with <link>. Maybe when we agree on  
that, it gets reverted back to <url> again. ;-)

> [page 12, sect 4.13.1]  I don't think the "title" of a Web Resource is a  
> well-defined construct.

I agree. I'm not sure what it refers to. I guess it means the <title> of  
an HTML page, and if so, I agree that that's what it should say.

> atom:created" you mean "MAY contain an atom:summary"

Heh. Some copy+paste error there, I guess. :-)

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg         -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»

---

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:26:39 -0700

> Do we agree that it's OK to batch up editorial comments like this?

Sure; please CC: the editors, though, to call it out to their attention.

> this somehow represents consensus based on earlier discussion.

It represents the state of the draft as it sat before the WG. There was 
some discussion on it then. I don't think it's editorial just because 
it conflicts with 3470 (although they obviously need to be resolved); 
can we start a separate thread on this one?

> Atom should/may/whatever contain DOCTYPES, PIs, and comments is 

Agreed.

> reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag

Seems reasonable.

> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dt-escape

Seems reasonable.

> really not appropriate.  Same for 4.9 and anywhere else "url" appears.

I'm happy to take this as editorial if no one objects.

> does the discussion above make it superfluous?

Do you mean 4.13? If so, yes. This text was incorporated here because 
PaceItemLang was accepted; my intent was to show the language to make 
sure we liked the approach, and then consolidate the approach to 
xml:lang in the next draft.

> available..." then that's fine.  Or (better) just lose it.

Are you speaking just about the last sentence? I don't have a strong 
preference here, anyone else?

> atom:created" you mean "MAY contain an atom:summary"

Ack.

Thanks!

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/

---

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 10:51:18 +1000

> that, it gets reverted back to <url> again. ;-)

+1

---

From: Walter Underwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:53:14 -0700

--On Tuesday, July 13, 2004 3:13 PM -0700 Tim Bray <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> [page 12, sect 4.13.1]  I don't think the "title" of a Web Resource
> is a well-defined construct.  It certainly doesn't appear in Web

It isn't in the published web architecture, but it is there in
the real web. The title is what shows up in search engine results.

In practice, nearly all formats have a provision for some sort
of title. text/plain doesn't have an explicit title in the format,
but the resource draft-ietf-atompub-format-00.txt does have a title,
regardless. An entry for it should use that title.

Titles are critical for navigation, and encouraging them in the
format is very important. Resources without titles are very hard
to present in any abbreviated form.

wunder
--
Walter Underwood
Principal Architect, Verity