Subject: round 2: Proposed Changes for format-11

From: Robert Sayre <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:02:38 -0400

The diffs linked below should reflect comments on the first round. No
effort has been made to resolve the ambiguity discovered around
leading and trailing whitespace. Awaiting chairs' instructions for
that.

http://www.franklinmint.fm/2005/08/02/draft-ietf-atompub-format-11-from-10.diff.html
http://www.franklinmint.fm/2005/08/02/draft-ietf-atompub-format-11.html
http://www.franklinmint.fm/2005/08/02/draft-ietf-atompub-format-11.txt

Robert Sayre

---

From: [email-masked] (Peter Robinson)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 22:19:51 +0100

Robert Sayre <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The diffs linked below should reflect comments on the first round.

A few more minor nits I'm afraid.  (I don't think I've seen these
discussed before.)

> http://www.franklinmint.fm/2005/08/02/draft-ietf-atompub-format-11.txt

| Atom allows the use of IRIs [RFC3987].  Every URI [RFC3986] is also
| an IRI, so a URI may be used wherever below an IRI is named.

s/ below//

You've replaced 'is needed.' with 'is named.' in the last clause.  I'm
not sure that's an improvement, or what was wrong with 'is needed.' in
the first place.  But if you don't like that, what about 'is required.'
or 'is called for.'?

You've also replaced 'a URI can' with 'a URI may'.  Do you mean 'a URI
MAY'?  I suppose it depends on whether you see that sentence as a
statement of fact or as part of the spec.

Regards,

Peter