> Ned Freed wrote:
> >> FYI -- this is an individual submission yet intended for Proposed
> >> Standard, so input is most welcome.
> >
> > I have a couple of comments, all minor.
> >
> Thank you for taking the time.
> >[snip]
> > The "in-reply-to" element is used to indicate that an entry is a
> > response to another resource. The element MUST contain either or both the
> > "ref" and "href" attributes.
> >
> Yes, this makes sense. Also, I am changing this definition making ref
> required in all cases.
Good - I think that makes even more sense.
> > Now, I have a lot more experience with XML Schema than with Relax NG so
> > maybe I'm reading this wrong, but the Relax NG definition seems to say
> > that the source attribute can only appear when the ref attribute is present
> > and the type attribute can only appear when the href attribute is present.
> > But this isn't spelled out in the (normative) text. How about adding
> > "When the ref attribute is present" before "The 'source' attribute ..." and
> > "When the href attribute is present" before "The 'type' attribute ..."?
> >
> Yes. I'll make the change.
> > Finally, the document seems a bit short on specifics of how the
> > in-reply-to element is actually used. Although the underlying semantic
> > model here seems to be simpler than email's in-reply-to/references scheme
> > (a good thing IMO), perhaps some words about whether you need to list just
> > the parent(s) and not the grandparent(s) would be in order. There
> > were certainly differences of opinion about this in the days of RFC 822
> > which RFC 2822 section 3.6.4 cleared up.
> >
> I will take another look at 2822 and see if I can strike the right balance.
Sounds good.
Ned
