[apps-discuss] (no subject)

Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> Mon, 06 February 2012 20:51 UTC

Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:51:29 -0500
From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
To: apps-discuss@ietf.org, draft-snell-atompub-tombstones.all@tools.ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1202061516550.21567@wnl.j3.bet>
User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; format="flowed"; charset="ISO-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: [apps-discuss] (no subject)
Precedence: list

Dear all,

I have been selected as the Applications Area Directorate reviewer for 
this draft (for background on appsdir, please see 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/app/trac/wiki/ApplicationsAreaDirectorate).

Document: draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-14
Title: The Atom "deleted-entry" Element
Reviewer: Yves Lafon
Review Date: 6 Feb 2012

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as Informational RFC, 
there is a minor issue with the ref. section, and a clarification request 
on a MUST-level requirement that is non-blocking.

First, the clarification request: I noted that in 3/ "The at:deleted-entry 
element"

It says:
<<
    An Atom feed MAY contain any number of at:deleted-entry elements, but
    MUST NOT contain more than one with the same combination of ref and
    when attribute values.
>>
then later
<<
    Implementors should note that the at:deleted-entry element is
    informative in nature only and may be ignored by Atom processors.
    The presence of an at:deleted-entry element does not guarantee that
    the atom:entry to which it is referring will no longer be available.
>>

If it is informative only, why in the first paragraph there is a MUST NOT 
on duplicate at:deleted-entry with same 'ref' and 'when', especially as 
two delete may happen in the same second while being different.
What is the rationale for having a MUST NOT instead of a SHOULD NOT?

-- 

In the reference section, the link to XML is to the third edition while 
the fifth edition was published in 2008 [1], for namespaces in XML, it is 
to the first edition while the third edition [2] was published in 2009, 
and for XML base, the first edition instead of the second edition [3].
Was that done on purpose (and then why?) or should the ref section be 
updated?

Cheers,

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-xml-20081126/>
[2] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xml-names-20091208/>
[3] <http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-xmlbase-20090128/>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves

[apps-discuss] (no subject) chris jamison
[apps-discuss] (no subject) Murray S. Kucherawy
[apps-discuss] (no subject) Yves Lafon
[apps-discuss] Review of draft-snell-atompub-tomb… Yves Lafon
Re: [apps-discuss] Review of draft-snell-atompub-… James M Snell
[apps-discuss] (no subject) John Levine
Re: [apps-discuss] (no subject) Evan Prodromou
Re: [apps-discuss] (no subject) Evan Prodromou
[apps-discuss] (no subject) Murray S. Kucherawy
Re: [apps-discuss] (no subject) Murray S. Kucherawy
[apps-discuss] (no subject) Robert Sayre
[apps-discuss] (no subject) วงศ์วริศ เธียรโชติ
[apps-discuss] (no subject) วงศ์วริศ เธียรโชติ
[apps-discuss] (no subject) Barry Leiba
[apps-discuss] (no subject) Johny wijaya