Tuesday, July 5, 2005, 5:09:40 PM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 11:58 AM -0400 7/5/05, Bob Wyman wrote: >> Could we at least put in a sentence that states that including a >>source element in signed entries is recommended? The implementer's guide >>would then expand on that with more detail, discussion, etc. > It's quite late to do this. The IESG is looking at a particular > version of the draft, and are making comments on that particular > version. It is really important that we only make changes based on > IESG members' input, not on yet-more things we find. Will we still be fixing some of bugs raised since the last draft though? Specifically, what are the resolutions for the disputed ban on composite MIME types [1], and some of the specific bugs in section 6 [2] (mismatches with the RelaxNG etc)? [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15911.html [2] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15915.html -- Dave
