Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atompub-format-09.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 15:59:43 -0400

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Atom Publishing Format and Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: The Atom Syndication Format
	Author(s)	: R. Sayre, M. Nottingham
	Filename	: draft-ietf-atompub-format-09.txt
	Pages		: 53
	Date		: 2005-6-8
	
This document specifies Atom, an XML-based Web content and metadata
   syndication format.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-format-09.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-atompub-format-09.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-format-09.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.

---

From: Tim Bray <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 13:26:39 -0700

> Protocol Working Group of the IETF.

<co-chair-mode>
This is what we consider our final product, and what we'll be taking  
forward through the IETF process; stand by for further news on that.

Perhaps more important, this means that it's time to focus 100% of  
our time on the protocol work. -Tim
</co-chair-mode>

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 14:59:40 -0600

> 4.1.1:
>     o  atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:image
>       element.
Should be "atom:logo".

4.1.2 says:
>    o  atom:entry elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:link
>       element with a rel attribute value of "alternate" that has the
>       same combination of type and hreflang attribute values.
4.1.1 says:
>    o  atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:link
>       element with a rel attribute value of "alternate" that has the
>       same type attribute value.
Should 4.1.1 also mention hreflang?

4.1.2 puts this in a separate bullet, but 4.1.1 does not:
>    o  atom:entry elements MAY contain additional atom:link elements
>       beyond those described above.

Nit pick: 4.1.2 says:
>    o  atom:entry elements MUST have exactly one "atom:title" element.
>
>    o  atom:entry elements MUST contain exactly one atom:updated 
> element.
Do we want to be consistent in saying "contain" i/o "have"?

> 4.1.3.2  The "src" attribute
>
>    atom:content MAY have a "src" attribute, whose value MUST be an IRI
>    reference [RFC3987].  If the "src" attribute is present, 
> atom:content
>    MUST be empty.  Atom Processors MAY use the IRI to retrieve the
>    content, and MAY NOT process or present remote content in the same
>    manner as local content.
It took me a second to realize that MAY NOT means "don't have to" 
rather than "aren't allowed to".  The technical meaning of the terms is 
perfectly clear, but it's quite different from the usual meaning of 
those words, and may be misunderstood.  It might be better to say "Atom 
Processors MAY use the IRI to retrieve the content, and MAY process or 
present remote content in a different manner from local content."

Appendix A.  Contributors doesn't appear to have been updated to add 
more names.

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:20:59 -0500

> Do we want to be consistent in saying "contain" i/o "have"?

The XML specification consistently uses "contain".

Peter

---

From: Graham <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:44:40 +0100

On 8 Jun 2005, at 9:59 pm, Antone Roundy wrote:

> rather than "aren't allowed to".  The technical meaning of the  
> terms is perfectly clear, but it's quite different from the usual  
> meaning of those words, and may be misunderstood.  It might be  
> better to say "Atom Processors MAY use the IRI to retrieve the  
> content, and MAY process or present remote content in a different  
> manner from local content."

+1

"and MAY process or present remote content in a different manner to  
local content"

Graham