Two minor editorial suggestions (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-09.txt)
Well, the subject says it all; here they are: - It were nice if the example in 7.1 would include @xml:lang, since both workspace/@title and collection/@title are Language-Sensitive. Granted, there might be a Content-Language response header (not shown) to do the job, but IMHO the example would benefit from making language information explicit. - The proposed file extension for APP Introspection Documents (.atomsrv) and its media type (application/atomserv+xml) are inconsistent. It would IMHO be better to use either atomsrv or atomserv consistently in both file extension and media type. Everything else is just confusing for no good reason. Regards, Andreas Sewe FWIW, I have set the Reply-To to atom-protocol, since it seems to be the more appropriate list to discuss these things -- not that it really matters, given the overlap between atom-syntax's and atom-protocol's audiences...
Re: Two minor editorial suggestions (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-09.txt)
Andreas Sewe wrote: Well, the subject says it all; here they are: - It were nice if the example in 7.1 would include @xml:lang, since both workspace/@title and collection/@title are Language-Sensitive. Granted, there might be a Content-Language response header (not shown) to do the job, but IMHO the example would benefit from making language information explicit. +1. Which are clients supposed to respect in a conflict, the Content-Language header or the xml:lang, ie, does XML On The Web Failing Miserably, Utterly, And Completely extend to Content-Language+xml:lang? - The proposed file extension for APP Introspection Documents (.atomsrv) and its media type (application/atomserv+xml) are inconsistent. It would IMHO be better to use either atomsrv or atomserv consistently in both file extension and media type. Everything else is just confusing for no good reason. I have no strong prefs here (other than liking application/app+xml). cheers Bill
Re: Two minor editorial suggestions (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-09.txt)
On 30/6/06 1:34 AM, Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which are clients supposed to respect in a conflict, the Content-Language header or the xml:lang, ie, does XML On The Web Failing Miserably, Utterly, And Completely extend to Content-Language+xml:lang? xml:lang, if you think of xml being nested. in other words, what is the lang of the atom:content below: HTTP 200 OK Content-Language: ch ... feed xml:lang=fr ... entry xml:lang=it content xml:lang=en ... ... /content ... /entry ... /feed e.
Re: Two minor editorial suggestions (Was: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-atompub-protocol-09.txt)
Eric Scheid wrote: On 30/6/06 1:34 AM, Bill de hÓra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which are clients supposed to respect in a conflict, the Content-Language header or the xml:lang, ie, does XML On The Web Failing Miserably, Utterly, And Completely extend to Content-Language+xml:lang? xml:lang, if you think of xml being nested. in other words, what is the lang of the atom:content below: HTTP 200 OK Content-Language: ch ... feed xml:lang=fr ... entry xml:lang=it content xml:lang=en ... ... /content ... /entry ... /feed Hi Eric, I guess my next question is - do we need to tell people this in the protocol spec, or should I Just Know That, Utterly, And Completely ? cheers Bill
