Julian Reschke wrote:
OK, here are some preliminary comments based on what's available from
http://www.atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html:
Julian, you hacker! You'll never get into Harvard Business School now.
- the RNC grammar is still unusable in that TRANG rejects the
Robert Sayre wrote:
Graham wrote:
On 6 Mar 2005, at 5:15 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Your assumption is completely wrong. The WG will review the next
draft before passing on to the IETF. The timing of the IETF meeting
is completely inconsequential.
Can you fill us in on what's happening with the
Hi,
apparently, the new draft (06) wasn't finished in time for submission
before the meeting cutoff.
As this draft is the one that's supposed to be submitted for publication
(at least that's my understanding), wouldn't it make a lot of sense to
make the current edits available for review
At 11:42 AM +0100 3/6/05, Julian Reschke wrote:
apparently, the new draft (06) wasn't finished in time for
submission before the meeting cutoff.
Correct.
As this draft is the one that's supposed to be submitted for
publication (at least that's my understanding), wouldn't it make a
lot of sense
Paul Hoffman wrote:
As this draft is the one that's supposed to be submitted for
publication (at least that's my understanding), wouldn't it make a lot
of sense to make the current edits available for review (*before* it
is committed after the end of the IETF meeting)?
Your assumption is
