This 23()=(#=)( GMail, I always send to the author instead of the
list... Sorry, Julian.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Janne Jalkanen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Apr 5, 2005 12:31 PM
Subject: Re: PaceFeedIdOrSelf
To: Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1.
Also, a second question on
+1
At 02:59 05/04/05, Antone Roundy wrote:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceFeedIdOrSelf
Your working group chairs have asked me to shepherd
draft-ietf-atompub-format-07 through IETF last call. As part of that
process, I have an obligation to review the document myself. I've completed
my review and I'd like to share my comments and a few questions with the
group.
A new version of
Robert Sayre wrote:
Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
that all
of the examples given in the document are valid according to the
schema?
Oh, you said *all*. The document fragments haven't been automatically
checked, and I just spotted one mistake. The link element in 4.2.9.2 is
broken.
I'm not sure what
Robert,
Thanks, but you didn't answer all of my question. Has someone (you?)
confirmed that the schema and examples are consistent? I really don't have
the time to double-check something that the working group should have done
itself if that means installing and getting familiar with a new
-Original Message-
From: Tim Bray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 12:26 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org
Subject: Re: AD Review Comments and Questions:
draft-ietf-atompub-format-07
On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
Hi,
Firefox ironically displays a Live Bookmark icon for
http://atompub.org/2005/04/04/draft-ietf-atompub-format-07.html :-)
This is caused by LINK tags such as
link rel=Chapter title=2 Atom Documents href=#rfc.section.2
...whenever a title contains the string Atom, it is mis-detected as a
At 9:26 AM -0700 4/5/05, Tim Bray wrote:
Section 7.1: what process is the IESG supposed to use to review registration
requests? Please see section 2 of RFC 2434/BCP 26 for mechanisms that might
be used and please specify one in the document.
Paul, care to take the lead on this? -Tim
Nope. Scott:
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 2:07 PM
To: Tim Bray; Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org
Subject: Re: AD Review Comments and Questions:
draft-ietf-atompub-format-07
At 9:26 AM -0700 4/5/05, Tim Bray wrote:
At 2:25 PM -0400 4/5/05, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
As described in 2434, IESG Approval, though the IESG has discretion to
request documents or other supporting materials on a case-by-case basis.
Right.
I'd really like to see some guidance in the document to describe what the
IESG should look for.
Hi,
I just updated my issues list based on the current draft (that is, I
didn't yet have time to scan for potential new issues). Most of the
issues are editorial, but two of them IMHO really need to be addressed
before the draft can be submitted (05-C05 and 05-E12).
Also, the embedded RNC
Robert Sayre wrote:
Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
Thanks, but you didn't answer all of my question. Has someone (you?)
confirmed that the schema and examples are consistent?
OK, I'm probably not the best person to check the examples. Volunteers?
Me. Will be back to you in 24h.
cheers
Bill
Julian Reschke wrote:
Firefox ironically displays a Live Bookmark icon for
http://atompub.org/2005/04/04/draft-ietf-atompub-format-07.html :-)
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=257247
I've just had a hard time pushing for draconian autodiscovery, since
it's vastly easier to find
Anything to add?
Julian Reschke wrote:
05-C05, 4.15.3 processing model Update -06: I'm still confused by the
text. For instance...
I agree that this section is gnarly. The editors will attempt to clarify
that section without making any normative changes, and will check with
the WG to verify that
14 matches
Mail list logo
