Very nice to see some of this old work being revisited. I am all for updating and revitalizing the draft so long as there are people taking the time to implement and provide feedback. If you can, please post a note here with any issues you think need to be resolved and I will update the draft accordingly.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Ed Summers <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hey Alistair, > > On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:11 AM, Alistair Miles <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Generally speaking, we've found this to be a very useful feature in > several > > applications, and would be interested in revisiting James' original I-D > if > > anyone else was. > > > > I think the draft would need updating to deal with a couple of relatively > > minor issues we've worked around, and the fact that the new tombstones > draft > > [3] overlaps (see [4]). But for the most part, it works well as-is, for > us > > at least. > > I would definitely be interested in a revision to Atom Syndication > Format Revision Tracking [1] to work better with Atom Tombstones [2], > and also Link Relation Types for Simple Version Navigation between Web > Resources (RFC 5829) [3]. > > I'd be curious to hear how you are using the extension in the work you > are doing, if you had a blog post in you, or if it could be posted > here. Being able to express version relations on the web is very > important for digital library applications. > > //Ed > > [1] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-atompub-revision-00 > [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-snell-atompub-tombstones > [3] http://tools.ietf.org/search/rfc5829 > >
