hello.
Brian Smith wrote:
Erik Wilde wrote:
Are these things discussed in an erratum or in some other well-know
place or document? http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4287
does not show any atom errata, and the things you are mentioning
(undefined comparisons, missing grammars) should definitely be recorded
somewhere, shouldn't they?
At one point I had collected a bunch of minor issues like this with RFC 4287
and RFC 5023, and I even shared a few on the list in the past. After trying
to work with AtomPub for a while I've realized that AtomPub is a useless
standard and Atom usually causes more problems than it solves. I may be able
to dig up the list of issues if somebody else is interested in doing
something with them.
i think it would be very useful to have such a list, and to formally
file them as errata (if discussions on the relevant lists establish that
they indeed are areas where the current specs lack necessary details).
so if you could send a list of atom and atompub issues to the relevant
lists, that could be the start of a very useful discussion. i don't know
how many people look up RFC errata and my guess is not very many (the
IETF could do a better job of publishing related material, i think), but
at least there is a well-defined place where you can find them.
http://dret.net/rfc-index/ is my rather simplistic attempt (refreshed
weekly) to make the IETF documents a bit more accessible, but there is a
lot that could be improved. just out of curiosity: is there a list of
machine-readable resources (such as the XML RFC index) that one could
use to improve access to IETF information resources by building a bit
more sophisticated web pages from it?
thanks,
erik wilde tel:+1-510-6432253 - fax:+1-510-6425814
[email protected] - http://dret.net/netdret
UC Berkeley - School of Information (ISchool)
