Robert Sayre schrieb:
...
Thanks for the clarification. You may have missed another question I
recently asked, so I'll repeat it here. I am concerned that purl.org
lists the document author as the owner of the namespace URI, and I
wonder how the IESG came to the conclusion that the namespace is
Although I share Robert's concerns about how this spec became a Proposed
Standard, I really have trouble to see the issue here. As a matter of
fact, I'm using a purl.org URL in one of my (non-Atom related) drafts as
well.
What we're talking about here is not change control over the
Sylvain Hellegouarch schrieb:
...
Just a thought like that but wouldn't it make sense for RFC 4287 to have
specified that every standardised extension should follow the same
namespace as RFC 4287?
For instance RFC 4287 uses http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom
Extensions should then be something like:
On 7/19/06, Julian Reschke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What we're talking about here is not change control over the namespace
or the namespace name! It's about what happens if an HTTP client
dereferences that URL, which is irrelevant for the purpose of XML
namespaces.
It's irrelevant for the
http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0 now redirects to the draft-12
spec. When the rfc is minted, it will redirect to the rfc.
- James
Julian Reschke wrote:
Robert Sayre schrieb:
...
Thanks for the clarification. You may have missed another question I
recently asked, so I'll repeat it
I can't speak for all of the IESG, how closely they reviewed the
document and how carefully they considered the appropriateness of the
namespace. We don't have rules against such namespace choices. We
could argue about whether or not we should have such rules, but the
results of that
On 7/18/06, Lisa Dusseault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We don't have rules against such namespace choices. We
could argue about whether or not we should have such rules,
Well, there is a BCP about this.
At this point, it's very rare to
pull a document or change something like this that would
At 10:43 06/07/10, Robert Sayre wrote:
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for the clarification. You may have missed another question I
recently asked, so I'll repeat it here. I am concerned that purl.org
lists the document author as the owner of the namespace URI, and I
wonder how the IESG came to the conclusion
On 7/11/06, Martin Duerst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:43 06/07/10, Robert Sayre wrote:
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for the clarification. You may have missed another question I
recently asked, so I'll repeat it here. I am concerned that purl.org
lists the document author as the owner of the namespace
All I need to know is who to transfer it to.
- James
Martin Duerst wrote:
At 10:43 06/07/10, Robert Sayre wrote:
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for the clarification. You may have missed another question I
recently asked, so I'll repeat it here. I am concerned that purl.org
lists the document author
On 7/4/06, Lisa Dusseault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wrote the synopsis, in which I was careful not to state that it was
a WG document. I believe it was accurate for what it said although
it's very brief. I discussed explicitly with the IESG during the
IESG tele-conference calls that there
I wrote the synopsis, in which I was careful not to state that it was
a WG document. I believe it was accurate for what it said although
it's very brief. I discussed explicitly with the IESG during the
IESG tele-conference calls that there was some lengthy debate and
disagreement over
The IESG has approved the following document:
- 'Atom Threading Extensions '
draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-12.txt 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
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
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?
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
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
17 matches
Mail list logo
