Subject: Spec wording bug?

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:43:31 +0200

In draft-ietf-atompub-format-11 under 4.2.7  The "atom:link" Element,
compare and contrast:

[[
4.2.7.4  The "hreflang" Attribute

   The "hreflang" attribute's content describes the language of the
   resource pointed to by the href attribute.

...

4.2.7.6  The "length" Attribute

   The "length" attribute indicates an advisory length of the linked
   content in octets; it is a hint about the content length of the
   representation returned when the IRI in the href attribute is mapped
   to a URI and dereferenced.
]]

I believe "the language of the resource" for hreflang makes no sense -
it will be the *representations* that are associated with languages,
and "the" implies a single language - there may be more than one.

Cheers,
Danny.

--

http://dannyayers.com

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:48 -0700

>it will be the *representations* that are associated with languages,

I think that's being way too picky. It makes sense that content (the 
generic term) might have a language associated with it.

>and "the" implies a single language - there may be more than one.

That's true. And it matches the XML 1.0 spec exactly.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

---

From: Antone Roundy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:19:18 -0600

> and "the" implies a single language - there may be more than one.
If content negotiation might be used to select from among different  
languages (ie. if multiple representations are available from the  
same URI), then perhaps the hreflang attribute should be omitted.   
Were we to have allowed multiple languages to be specified in the  
same hreflang attribute to cover such cases, the wording would be  
incorrect, but since we didn't, I think it's correct as it is.

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:26:47 -0400

> generic term) might have a language associated with it.

What's the R in URI stand for? :)

> That's true. And it matches the XML 1.0 spec exactly.

I don't understand the second issue being raised here. Could someone try again?

Robert Sayre

---

From: Danny Ayers <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:23:14 +0200

> I don't understand the second issue being raised here. Could someone try again?

Robert - sorry, I obviously wasn't very clear. I only wished to bring
a single issue to the list's attention, the discrepancy between the
wording of the spec on "hreflang", and what I believe to be its
intended meaning in particular in terms of one of the cited references
(RFC 3986).

>    resource pointed to by the href attribute.

A resource in the sense of RFC 3986, as far as I can tell, may have
multiple representations associated with any number of languages. As
far as I'm aware, the only connection between the language(s) and the
resource is through the representation(s). This view is reflected in

>    to a URI and dereferenced.

Antone - I could be wrong, but I don't think this is a content
negotiation issue, simply that the wording munges the resource with
its representation(s). I believe this inconsistent with the WebArch
conceptual model assumed by the rest of the Atom spec, and actually
inconsistent with that other definition inside the spec.

Paul - as I understand it the content isn't identical with the
resource. This distinction may appear picky, but given that the other
definition quoted manages consistency with the referenced specs, it
appears to be possible without much extra effort. I must confess I
have no idea of the IETF line on where accuracy ends and pickiness
begins, or what might be appropriate action under the process - on
that I will happily defer to you. I'm afraid I don't know what you are
referring here:

DA: > >and "the" implies a single language - there may be more than one.
PH: > That's true. And it matches the XML 1.0 spec exactly.

Cheers,
Danny.

--

http://dannyayers.com