Fair enough. Thanks for answering the question.
Joel
At 12:15 AM 6/16/2006, James M Snell wrote:
The atomURI label is adopted from RFC4287, which also uses the labels to
accept IRI's. Yes, it is confusing, but given that this is an extension
to RFC4287, I felt it was better to reuse the concepts than to redefine
them.
- James
Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread.txt.
> For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
> <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>.
>
> Please wait for direction from your document shepherd
> or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
>
> This document appears ready for publication as a Proposed Standard.
> However, I have a question...
> Several of the attributes have a type of "atomURI". However, reading
> the text carefully, it is clear that they are actually IRIs. I suspect
> that those have the same syntax. But since they have different
> semantics, it seems odd for the syntax definition to refer to atomURI
> rather than atomIRI.
>
> Thank you for addressing my earlier comments.
>
> Yours,
> Joel M. Halpern
>
> ------
> GEN Atom Threading Extensions (Proposed Standard)
>
>
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-12.txt>draft-snell-atompub-feed-thread-12.txt
>
> Token: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Lisa Dusseault
> Reviewer:Joel Halpern (reviewed -10 for LC)
>
>
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
