At 9:23 PM +0200 7/14/05, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
Hi,
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-atompub-format-10.txt
defines "http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"; as namespace for the Atom format.
Is this really a good choice considering that most of the similar W3C
namespaces use different casing, e.g.
http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml
http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink
http://www.w3.org/2000/svg
http://www.w3.org/2001/vxml
http://www.w3.org/2001/xml-events
http://www.w3.org/2002/xforms
http://www.w3.org/2004/xbl
...
Though I guess it's to late now to change this...
It is indeed. Given that only developers will be typing this in, and
they will probably be copying-and-pasting, this seems like a really
minor issue, not worth delaying over.
At 9:37 PM +0200 7/14/05, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:
I think it would be helpful if section 8 ("Security Considerations")
of the latest draft includes a reference to section 5 "Securing Atom
Documents".
This is rarely done in RFCs. Further, Section 5 is clearly listed in
the table of contents, and someone who intends to implement the
protocol probably has at least skimmed the document before they read
the details in the Security Considerations section.
And, the two Security Area Directors have signed off on the Security
Considerations section in -10.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Internet Mail Consortium
