James M Snell wrote:
Bill de hOra wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
Bill de hOra wrote:
James M Snell wrote:
1. deleted-entry is now part of the Atom namespace
"The Atom namespace is reserved for future forward-compatible revisions
of Atom." RFC4287, 6.2.
The rfc-editor should have picked this up.
Picked what up? The rfc-editor is not involved in the publishing of
I-D's. If this I-D is published as a Standards Track RFC, it would
specifically indicate that it is an update to RFC 4287 and would qualify
as a "forward-compatible revision of Atom". I believe that it's up to
the Area Director to determine whether or not to allow individual
submissions such as this to proceed along that route or whether a WG is
required.
You seem to be assuming this won't get implemented before it gets to
standards track. Until that time, I suggest you revert the namespace. Or
make it clear that you intend to use this to create a forward compatible
revision of Atom.
Until (and if) it gets to the standards track, the deleted-entry element
is no different than any other unknown extension element an application
may add to a feed; conformant implementations are required to ignore it
and validators will be right to point it out as a validation error.
[cc'd to the AD]
I see this as a worst practice, and the rationale above as paper thin.
Frankly, I'm unable to conclude this is treating the spec's versioning
policy as anything other than a loophole.
Please explain why the tombstone markup has been placed in the Atom
namespace. As I see it, each third party addition of an arbitrary name
into the atom namespace degrades its overall value; Murato makato has
given examples as to why. Please recall we were very careful in
selecting the set of names for Atom. In this case there are no social or
technical gains to be had that I can see.
I will update the draft to make it clearer that the intent is to update
RFC 4287.
Then surely the way to do that, is to start work on updating RFC4287
according to an IETF process, not adding arbitrary names via I-Ds and
waiting to be called on it here.
cheers
Bill
