Subject: Re: atom tombstones

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:17:38 +0000

I will republish the draft and get it started on its last call for publication as a standards track RFC
------Original Message------
From: Niklas Lindström
Sender: [email-masked]
To: Erik Wilde
Cc: Ross Singer
Cc: Ed Summers
Cc: atom-syntax
Subject: Re: atom tombstones
Sent: Feb 11, 2010 9:09 AM

Same +1 here; interested and willing to help. We are using them in a
swedish government project (collecting legal documents and rdf
metadata from ~100 government agencies).

Best regards,
Niklas

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Erik Wilde <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> interested and willing to help, too.
>
> dret.
>
> On Feb 11, 2010, at 6:28, Ross Singer <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Ed Summers <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I was just curious about the process to help push Atom Tombstones
>>> forward [1]. Unless I'm misreading things it appears to have expired
>>> on Dec-10-2009. I have been using it in some work I've done at the
>>> Library of Congress, and would like to help push the draft forward ...
>>> but am somewhat unsure of how best to achieve this.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I'd be interested in helping get the Tombstones effort back going
>> again, as well.
>>
>> -Ross.
>
>

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

---

From: Ed Summers <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:49:32 -0500

> I will republish the draft and get it started on its last call for publication as a standards track RFC

Thanks James! If there is anything us atom-tombstone users can do to
help in the last call process please let us know on atom-syntax
(assuming this is the right forum).

//Ed

---

From: Niklas Lindström <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:22:52 +0100

Hi James!

> I will republish the draft and get it started on its last call for publication as a standards track RFC

That's great; thanks!

I guess this means there will be nothing added at this point? I'm
happy with the way it is, so no worries there.

If however, it is at all possible (with my/our help of course) to add
to the draft, I remember a concern about not being able to have
<atom:source> and/or <atom:link> elements in the <at:deleted-entry>
body. Does that sound plausible to add? (Of course, you allow
extensionElement*, so it's not entirely locked down.)

Best regards,
Niklas

---

From: Asbjørn Ulsberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 11:07:50 +0100

On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 19:49:32 +0100, Ed Summers <[email-masked]> wrote:

> If there is anything us atom-tombstone users can do to help in the
> last call process please let us know on atom-syntax

The obvious thing would be to thoroughly read the draft and comment on any  
outstanding issues, clarifications that can be done, spelling errors, etc.  
If the draft's perfect from both a language and technical point of view,  
it's good to go, I guess.

By the way; great job on the spec, James.

> (assuming this is the right forum).

Indeed.

-- 
Asbjørn Ulsberg           -=|=-        [email-masked]
«He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»