Subject: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-snell-atompub-autodiscovery-00.txt]

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 08:52:54 -0800

All:

With Phil Rignalda's permission, I have taken over the role of editor
for the Autodiscovery draft and at Lisa and Paul's suggestion I have
resubmitted the draft as an **individual** submission (as opposed to a
Working Group Draft).  Phil has requested that his name be removed from
the draft.

The process for moving forward on this spec will be the same as with
Atom and APP.  Change proposals will need to be submitted in the form of
Pace's on the wiki with a copy sent to atom-syntax.  Pace's need to
include spec ready text, when appropriate. When consensus emerges around
a particular pace, it will get incorporated into the draft.  Editorial
changes need not go through this process; just post a note to the
atom-syntax list and I'll make sure the change is made.

- James

-------- Original Message --------
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.

	Title		: Atom Feed Autodiscovery
	Author(s)	: M. Pilgrim, J. Snell
	Filename	: draft-snell-atompub-autodiscovery-00.txt
	Pages		: 14
	Date		: 2006-11-27
	
   This document specifies a machine-readable method of linking to an
   Atom feed from a HyperText Markup Language (HTML) or Extensible
   HyperText Markup Language (XHTML) document, using the <link> element.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-autodiscovery-00.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-snell-atompub-autodiscovery-00.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-snell-atompub-autodiscovery-00.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.

_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce

---

From: "Tse Shing Chi \(Franklin/Whale\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:40:00 +0800

Why is one of the normative references in draft "draft-ietf-atompub-format-11" instead of "RFC4287"?

Franklin Tse

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of James M Snell
Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 00:53
To: atom-syntax; atom-protocol
Subject: [Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-snell-atompub-autodiscovery-00.txt]

All:

With Phil Rignalda's permission, I have taken over the role of editor for the Autodiscovery draft and at Lisa and Paul's suggestion I have resubmitted the draft as an **individual** submission (as opposed to a Working Group Draft).  Phil has requested that his name be removed from the draft.

The process for moving forward on this spec will be the same as with Atom and APP.  Change proposals will need to be submitted in the form of Pace's on the wiki with a copy sent to atom-syntax.  Pace's need to include spec ready text, when appropriate. When consensus emerges around a particular pace, it will get incorporated into the draft.  Editorial changes need not go through this process; just post a note to the atom-syntax list and I'll make sure the change is made.

- James

-------- Original Message --------
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.

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-snell-atompub-autodiscovery-00.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

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:

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

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:48:28 -0800

Because I resubmitted the draft with no changes from its previous
version.  I intend to update references with the next iteration of the
draft.

- James

Tse Shing Chi (Franklin/Whale) wrote:
> [snip]

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 23:25:00 -0500

James M Snell wrote:
> Atom and APP.  

No, it won't. It's not a WG document.

Does the draft diverge from existing browser behavior? Do browsers 
implement aspects of the document differently? What problems have you 
seen that make standardization necessary?

Without some evidence that the document serves a purpose, I'm afraid I 
don't see the point.

- Rob

P.S. -- the author affiliation information in the draft appears to be 
inaccurate.

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:20:20 -0800

> No, it won't. It's not a WG document.

Ok, to be absolutely pedantic about it: the process will be as close as
possible to that used for Atom/APP with the obvious exception that it is
an individual submission and not a WG draft. Pace's to the wiki;
discussion on the mailing list; Consensus calls will be posted
periodically; I will be tallying the results; anyone can challenge if
they feel the need; the entire process will be done out in the open.

> seen that make standardization necessary?

I dunno... you're the one that that writes browser code, you tell me.

You certainly seemed to think it was a good fit before. In fact, on
January 19 of this year you posted [1]:

  "I think the current draft reflects what implementations
   do pretty well"

> Without some evidence that the document serves a purpose, I'm afraid I

You seemed to think it served a purpose last January [2].

The only changes that have been made to the document since your post
requesting that it be unexpired and finished is the expiration date and
the name of the editor.  Perhaps it's the latter change that has you
wondering whether this suddenly may not be worth standardizing?

[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg17716.html
[2] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg17713.html

> P.S. -- the author affiliation information in the draft appears to be

How so?  Given that my volunteering to serve as the editor of this
document has nothing to do with my day job it would be inappropriate and
dishonest for me to associate my employers name with the work.

- James

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:35:12 -0500

James M Snell wrote:
> Consensus calls will be posted
> periodically; 
>   

That's not a process I can live with. Maybe this draft would be a better 
fit for the WHAT-WG or the W3C.

> I dunno... you're the one that that writes browser code, you tell me.

I don't think it's a problem worth solving, absent any evidence to the 
contrary. Mozilla doesn't seem to get many bug reports on this matter.

> You certainly seemed to think it was a good fit before. 

I changed my mind later on.

> dishonest for me to associate my employers name with the work.

We all participate in the IETF as individuals. Affiliations are a 
professional courtesy.

-Rob

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 21:52:59 -0800

> I changed my mind later on.

Fair enough.  We'll see if others agree; I'm not in any particular rush
nor do I see any particular reason why this should be moved to some
other venue.

- James

---

From: Rogers Cadenhead <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 06:12:38 -0800 (PST)

I'm the chairman of the RSS Advisory Board, which has
published our first autodiscovery specification [1].
I'd like to participate in the drafting of Atom's
effort in this area with the goal of making it
possible for publishers to support autodiscovery in
the same manner regardless of syndication format.

Our original spec said that it could be used with RSS
1.0, RSS 2.0 and Atom, but the Atom guidance was
removed to get out of your way as your spec is being
drafted.

I will put a couple of proposals on the wiki this
morning.

Regarding your current draft, a couple of editorial
suggestions:

1.

Are the "most relevant rules" part of Sections 3.2 and
"most relevant differences" part of 3.3 necessary?
It's helpful information, but it documents behavior
that's covered by the HTML and XHTML specs, so it
seems redundant and makes your spec longer than it
needs to be.

2.

The href attribute's section is out of order
alphabetically. For easier reference, I'd order
sections 4.1 through 4.3 as href, rel and type rather
than rel, type, href.

3.

Your introduction to autodiscovery doesn't describe
the most common and popular implementation of the
technique.

Your graf:

Autodiscovered Atom feeds may be presented to the user
in a variety of other ways.  In the past, Atom-enabled
clients have implemented local proxies that monitor
visited web sites and notify the end user of
autodiscovered Atom feeds in real time.  Such
notification is also built directly into some desktop
web browsers.

My suggested rewrite:

Autodiscovered Atom feeds can be presented to the user
in a variety
of other ways.  Current versions of the Microsoft
Internet Explorer
and Mozilla Firefox browsers notify users of the
presence of such a
feed by displaying an orange feed icon in the
browser's address bar.
Clicking the icon initiates the process of subscribing
to the feed.

1: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-autodiscovery

---

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 10:26:07 -0500

> nor do I see any particular reason why this should be moved to some

Hmm, looks like WHAT-WG has picked it up already:

http://whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#alternate0

That's the document of record, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see why
the IETF should or would get involved here.

- Rob

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:27:49 -0800

Rogers,

Thanks for taking a look. Some comments.

> removed to get out of your way as your spec is being

After going through and reviewing the WHATWG and RSS Board work last
night, I am strongly leaning in favor of moving this draft forward as an
Informational RFC rather than on the Standards Track.  The difference
between the two is that an Informational RFC is not a normative
specification.  This will give us a bit more leeway to include
information about RSS and pointers over to the WHATWG work.  The bottom
line is that, if the RSS Board is willing, the stuff you've done could
likely be folded into this document.

> I will put a couple of proposals on the wiki this

I see PaceRestrictRelValuesForAutodiscovery and
PaceRestrictTypeValuesForAutodiscovery.  I will comment on these separately.

> seems redundant and makes your spec longer than it

Well... on the one hand it is redundant; on the other it is helpful,
particularly in an informational document whose purpose is to describe
the best way of implementing autodiscovery.  However, I definitely think
the format could be reworked a bit.

> sections 4.1 through 4.3 as href, rel and type rather

Noted

> the most common and popular implementation of the

Yeah, this document was originally authored before that use case really
started to emerge.  I'll definitely add something about it to the intro
but I may not use your suggested words verbatim (I specifically want to
avoid mention of specific vendors).

- James