* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-16 19:50]: > There is an HTML version of the spec here: http://atompub.org/. > It was there when Danny sent his email, so I'm not sure what > all the whinging is about.
I like both versions for different reasons. Thanks, of course, for providing a HTML rendition – I, too, have to say I find the ASCII versions very 1989. (I use rfc.net to read RFCs so there is at least a modicum of formatting and actual, you know, links.) > replicating possibly-inaccurate copies of the spec claiming to > be "Atom 1.0" could be bad. People should be implored to keep the draft-foo moniker and keep an eye on the process in order to update their copies if they do want to host such, I guess. All copies/renditions I’ve seen so far would seem to satisfy the criteria. But yeah, spreading copies that run the risk of getting outdated is unwise. I think the addresses we have so far (per IETF, on atompub.org, and the other fancy copy on Danny’s site) should suffice as bookmark fodder. > Also, atompub.org is currently hosted by yours truly, but I'm > not attached to it. Thanks for your investment here, also. > Contact me offline if interested. You mean offlist? :-) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
