Subject: Atom Bidi Draft Update - Informal Last Call

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 09:59:03 -0700

I have posted an updated version of the Atom Bidi Draft.  The only
significant difference is a notice about direction guess algorithms.

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-bidi-03.txt

I have implemented support for this specification in Abdera and in IBM's
updated internal blogging environment.

The specification adds a new attribute "dir" to the set of common
attribute attributes within the Atom namespace.  The dir attribute
specifies the default directionality of language-sensitive text within
an Atom document.

example,

<entry xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" dir="rtl">
  ...
</entry>

At this point, I intend to request a formal last call on the document
and recommend it for publication as an experimental or informational draft.

Feedback is requested.

- James

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:25:12 -0700

It is not year clear if there has been enough independent implementation
of the specification to justify publishing it as a proposed standard.

- James

Franklin Tse wrote:
> James,
> 
> Why are you going to recommend that for publication as an experimental or informational draft, but not a Proposed Standard?
> 
> Franklin Tse
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James M Snell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "atom-syntax" <[email-masked]>; "atom-protocol" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 00:59
> Subject: Atom Bidi Draft Update - Informal Last Call
>

---

From: "Franklin Tse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2007 01:22:53 +0800

James,

Franklin Tse

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:29:20 +0900

>of the specification to justify publishing it as a proposed standard.

There is no need for implementations when going to Proposed Standard
(of course, they never hurt). There is a well-defined need when going
from Proposed Standard to Draft Standard, but that's way in the future.

Regards,     Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[email-masked]

---

From: "Franklin Tse" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 20:29:40 +0800

I don't think we are in a hurry to move the draft to an RFC, so, can the draft be held in the "Draft" stage and issue a call for implementations? The future of the draft should be based on the implementation reports received.

Franklin

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 07:29:04 -0700

I'd be fine with this also.  There's no immediate rush for this but it
would be excellent if implementors could start taking a look at it.

- James

---

From: James M Snell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:59:10 -0700

Yeah, I know, but I personally have a preference towards having more
implementations available... especially since we're talking about a
draft that updates the core Atom spec with a new attribute.

- James