Norman Walsh wrote: > I recall a thread not too long ago about changes to the Atom schema > and Uche has pointed out some deficiencies > > http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2006-02-06/Small_fix_ > > I'd be happy to tweak the schema and try to address these bugs, but > does the group have any desire to see a "WG endorsed" set of fixes > published? And if it does, where should they be published? >
I didn't put my thoughts through the RFC errata process because the main bug I saw was in the non-normative schema, and anyway I don't know that there is a full RELAX NG file corresponding to the full RFC (as opposed to the revision 11 I-D). I figured I might as well host such an RNG, and while at it I might as well bring the RNG a bit more in line with the spec wording. I didn't know whether that was something that could be considered a formal erratum. There other things I brought up in my Weblog I do believe are nits in Atom, but I don't think they rise to the level of actual errata. If there is some aspect of my comments that folks do think is worthy of a formal erratum, let me know and I'll do what I can to submit it. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://fourthought.com http://copia.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
