new issues in draft -06, was: Updated issues list

[Julian Reschke]

..and here's a set of *new* issues I found while re-reading the draft...:
06-C01, 3.1.1 "type" Attribute
<http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html#rfc.section.3.1.1>
This has been mentioned before...: as far as I can tell, it's far easier 
for recipients to process "xhtml" compared to "html" (no tag-soup parser 
needed), thus *any* kind of change that encourages "xhtml" would be 
appreciated.

06-C02, 3.1.1 "type" Attribute
<http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html#rfc.section.3.1.1>
Here's a question. Is this...:
<summary type="html">
  overlapping &lt;b>markup &lt;>is&lt;/b> bad&lt;/i>.
</summary>
legal Atom? As far as I can tell, here we have a SHOULD level 
requirement to only transport well-formed HTML4 content, right?

06-C03, 3.3 Date Constructs
<http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html#rfc.section.3.3>
As others have pointed out, the regexp is incorrect ("-" characters in 
full-date part are missing). Also, I'm not sure whether it requires the 
timezone information; if it doesn't, this isn't what RFC3339 defines. In 
general, I find RFC3339 much easier to read:

--snip--
   date-fullyear   = 4DIGIT
   date-month      = 2DIGIT  ; 01-12
   date-mday       = 2DIGIT  ; 01-28, 01-29, 01-30, 01-31 based on
                             ; month/year
   time-hour       = 2DIGIT  ; 00-23
   time-minute     = 2DIGIT  ; 00-59
   time-second     = 2DIGIT  ; 00-58, 00-59, 00-60 based on leap second
                             ; rules
   time-secfrac    = "." 1*DIGIT
   time-numoffset  = ("+" / "-") time-hour ":" time-minute
   time-offset     = "Z" / time-numoffset
   partial-time    = time-hour ":" time-minute ":" time-second
                     [time-secfrac]
   full-date       = date-fullyear "-" date-month "-" date-mday
   full-time       = partial-time time-offset
   date-time       = full-date "T" full-time
--snip--
06-E01, 1.2 Example
<http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html#rfc.section.1.2>
Is it intentional that the example is inconsistently indented?
06-E02, 1.3 Notational Conventions
<http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html#rfc.section.1.3>
...speaks about namespace prefixe*s* being defined; but then only 
defines a single one.


06-E03, 5.1 Digital Signatures
<http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html#rfc.section.5.1>
s/namespace IRI/namespace URI/ (or "namespace name")
06-E04, 6.2 Extensions To the Atom Vocabulary
<http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html#rfc.section.6.2>
--snip--
considered "foreign "markup".
--snip--
(quoting).
06-E05, 8.1 HTML and XHTML Content
<http://atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html#rfc.section.8.1>
"See the security sections of RFC 2854 and HTML 4.01 for guidance."
(use proper references)

Best regards, Julian