-Original Message-
From: Norman Walsh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:08 PM
To: Atom Syntax
Subject: Atom syndication schema
I recall a thread not too long ago about changes to the Atom
schema and Uche has pointed out some deficiencies
-Original Message-
From: Andreas Sewe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 11:37 AM
To: Atom Publishing Protocol
Cc: Atom Syntax
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Approval of Atom LinkRelations Attribute
Value Registrations]
Regarding the following four link
-Original Message-
From: Tim Bray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:58 AM
To: Sam Ruby
Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org
Subject: Re: spec bug: can we fix for draft-11?
On Aug 4, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
I'm getting
FYI. This can be addressed post-IESG evaluation.
-Scott-
-Original Message-
From: Mark Baker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 11:07 AM
To: iesg@ietf.org
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RFC 2119 problem in Atom syndication format
Section
I will schedule the document for IESG review during the 23 June telechat.
Thanks for the notes.
-Scott-
-Original Message-
From: Paul Hoffman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 10:35 AM
To: Hollenbeck, Scott
Cc: Tim Bray; Atom WG
Subject:
A perfectly reasonable response would be that you've thought about and
understood the problem and there are sufficient tools available that
can work with your proposed pipe that you don't need to care about the
issue.
Paul described text that's in the document to describe what MAY be done.
-Original Message-
From: Bill de hÓra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 1:18 PM
To: atom-syntax Syntax'
Subject: Re: Autodiscovery
Tim Bray wrote:
Assuming no errors, or rather that any errors we turn up
are fixed, are
there any objections to us
One is an alias for the other. They're currently interchangeable from a
sending perspective.
-Scott-
-Original Message-
From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 11:43 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org
Subject: Re: AD Review
PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 6:25 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [xml-dir] FW: draft-ietf-atompub-format-07.txt is ready for
IETF last call
A very good document overall. I found just a few items, all minor.
1) Section 1.2.
The atom prefix uses
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
software
package.
I saw your follow-up; thanks.
-Scott-
-Original Message-
From: Robert Sayre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 12:05 PM
To: Scott Hollenbeck
Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org
Subject: RNG and examples (was: AD Review Comments and
Questions: draft-ietf
-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
-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
I understand that. It would also be acceptable for us to
decide to make it compatible, without changing the charter, correct?
As long as that goal doesn't conflict with other chartered work items, yes.
Much like we could've guaranteed questions from our A.D.
about date formats [0], I
Having written the datetime support for Apache Axis (a
webservice implementation based on XSD schema and having
hosted a number of SOAP interop facilities, I am +1 on the
regular expression limitation, believe that all dates that
that conform to this limitation are valid RFC 3339 and
Given the two choices, I actually prefer
security-by-reference because it points out the similarity of
what we are doing to other protocols.
I agree. It's also a good practice to have only one authoritative source
that talks about a topic, especially when that source has already been
No-one gains anything from overly protracted discussion. But
I don't seen any extraordinary circumstances that might
justify the imposition of cloture. Is there something related
to the (still unexplained) deadline mentioned in Tim's recent post?
I'm not sure that I understand why you
17 matches
Mail list logo
