James M Snell wrote:
Still in experimental stages. Cleaned up a bit and removed the
archived-entry element. Comments requested... particularly from potential
client implementors...
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-01.txt
I'm glad you've brought this up - I was just thinking about it last night.
Technically it looks great to me. I'm only interested in simply deleting any
tombstones I receive, so all I really need is the "id" attribute. I
understand the need for the "by" and "comments" elements - just saying I'm
unlikely to notice any problems with them.
As for the date, I'm unsure whether an Atom processor should be ignoring
tombstones that are dated older than the current updated date on an element.
If so, is that something worth mentioning in the spec?
Other editorial nits: In the introduction, "explicitly" is used twice in the
same sentence and you have a split infinitive - suggest nuking the first
usage. Near the end of section 3, you use the expression "deletion
operation". I don't know if it's just me, but that sounds wrong. Maybe
"delete operation", just "deletion", or even "removal of the entry" (which
is what you use later in section 5).
Regards
James
