Subject: Link Extensions I-D (was Re: Using I-D:s for tombstones and checksums)

From: Niklas Lindström <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:53:47 +0100

Hello again!

Regarding the Link Extensions
(<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-atompub-link-extensions-02>).
Is there a chance of that becoming an (Informational) RFC as well?

I just saw that GData has added a gd:etag attribute to their spec
suite, but that's only used on feed and entry elements. In my
scenarios, the (embedded or linked) representations are the "real"
data. The entry is more of a "resource manifest". Sort of a
"serialized HTTP exposure" if you will (capturing conneg variants and
headers). I find that the Link Extensions I-D does a lot to complete
the Atom syntax in regard to this manifest view.

(I'm sure this is a common view of atom entries, although it's not
always touted as such.)

Best regards,
Niklas

On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 2:18 AM, James M Snell <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Good to know. I could push the draft forward with Informational status. That
> would allow us to finalize it and get it an RFC# but it wouldn't be
> standards track. Would that be sufficient?
>
> - James