Re: Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard

[Robert Sayre]

On 6/26/06, Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 6/26/06, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Your reading might differ from others'.

I've read a lot of these, so I know this synopsis differs others.
Usually they stuff like "WG is OK with this." It's perfectly natural
to question and appropriate things that seem out of the ordinary.


er,  a little steamed here, that's not English.

It's perfectly natural to question whether things that seem out of the
ordinary are appropriate.

Anyway, you don't seem to have accurate answers on the process when it
doesn't match the outcome you're looking for.

--

Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

Re: Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard

[Robert Sayre]

On 6/26/06, Paul Hoffman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Your reading might differ from others'.


I've read a lot of these, so I know this synopsis differs others.
Usually they stuff like "WG is OK with this." It's perfectly natural
to question and appropriate things that seem out of the ordinary.

In the future, please save the oblique answers for someone who cares
to hear them.

--

Robert Sayre

Re: Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard

[Paul Hoffman]

At 8:35 PM -0400 6/26/06, Robert Sayre wrote:

On 6/26/06, The IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Working Group Summary

This is not a WG draft.  Nevertheless, the AtomPub WG discussion on 
this draft

was fairly lengthy, and resulted in a number of changes to the draft.



Who wrote this summary?


Probably Lisa.


Even Paul went on the record saying there was
no consensus on several aspects of the document.


Right. The statement above doesn't say anything about consensus.


This summary makes it
sound like it underwent a number of friendly suggestions, rather than
disapproval by at least half of the commenters, interupted only by
incorrect readings of RFC2026 and obfuscation by the document author.


Your reading might differ from others'.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium

Re: Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard

[Robert Sayre]

On 6/26/06, The IESG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Working Group Summary

This is not a WG draft.  Nevertheless, the AtomPub WG discussion on this draft
was fairly lengthy, and resulted in a number of changes to the draft.



Who wrote this summary? Even Paul went on the record saying there was
no consensus on several aspects of the document. This summary makes it
sound like it underwent a number of friendly suggestions, rather than
disapproval by at least half of the commenters, interupted only by
incorrect readings of RFC2026 and obfuscation by the document author.

--

Robert Sayre

Protocol Action: 'Atom Threading Extensions' to Proposed Standard

[The IESG]

The IESG has approved the following document:

- 'Atom Threading Extensions '
as a Proposed Standard

This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an
IETF Working Group.

The IESG contact person is Lisa Dusseault.

A URL of this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-12.txt

Technical Summary

This draft proposes some extensions to the Atom Syntax specification so that
the relationship of one Atom entry to another (for example, when one entry is a
comment on a blog post which is another entry).


Working Group Summary

This is not a WG draft.  Nevertheless, the AtomPub WG discussion on this draft
was fairly lengthy, and resulted in a number of changes to the draft.

Protocol Quality


As of May 2006, Feed Thread support has several independent 
implementations andeven some interoperability testing.


This document was reviewed for the IESG by Lisa Dusseault.

[Fwd: I-D ACTION:draft-saintandre-atompub-notify-05.txt]

[Peter Saint-Andre]

FYI...


 Original Message 
Subject: I-D ACTION:draft-saintandre-atompub-notify-05.txt
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 18:50:01 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: i-d-announce@ietf.org

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
directories.


Title   : Transporting Atom Notifications over the Extensible 
Messaging
and Presence Protocol (XMPP)
Author(s)   : P. Saint-Andre, et al.
Filename: draft-saintandre-atompub-notify-05.txt
Pages   : 17
Date: 2006-6-26

This memo describes a method for notifying interested parties about
   changes in syndicated information encapsulated in the Atom feed
   format, where such notifications are delivered via an extension to
   the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP) for publish-
   subscribe functionality.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-atompub-notify-05.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word unsubscribe in the body of
the message.
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce
to change your subscription settings.


Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
"get draft-saintandre-atompub-notify-05.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt


Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body type:
"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-saintandre-atompub-notify-05.txt".

NOTE:   The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
how to manipulate these messages.


Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.


-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml

Content-Type: text/plain
Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


___
I-D-Announce mailing list
I-D-Announce@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce

Re: [RFC 4287] unicity of atom:category element

[A. Pagaltzis]

* Nicolas Krebs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-27 00:15]:
> Could an atom 1.0 feed contain some item whith 
> " somexmlns:href='http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/What/Technology/Coding/Java/' />
> and other item with 
> " somexmlns:href='http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/What/Technology/Sun/Java/' />
> where the first Java is not the same as the second ? 

The term is machine readable. The label is human readable.




Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // 

[RFC 4287] unicity of atom:category element

[Nicolas Krebs]

Thanks for your previous answer. 

Excerpt quoted from section 4.2.2 of urn:ietf:rfc:4287
( http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4287#section-4.2.2 )

> 4.2.2.1.  The "term" Attribute

> The "term" attribute is a string that identifies the category 

Is the term attribute an unique identifiers ? 

How can i manage the homonym ? 

Could an atom 1.0 feed contain some item whith 
"
and other item with 
"
where the first Java is not the same as the second ?