Re: Status of draft-ietf-atompub-format
Julian Reschke wrote: OK, here are some preliminary comments based on what's available from http://www.atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html: Julian, you hacker! You'll never get into Harvard Business School now. - the RNC grammar is still unusable in that TRANG rejects the Schematron extensions; what do I need in addition to TRANG/JING to actually use that file? Norm has mentioned simplifying the schema in the past. I'll defer to him here. - after removing the Schematron extensions: the RNC still is broken (missing double quotes after 'text') - (after fixing that as well): atomPlainTextConstruct and atomXHTMLTextConstruct still use uppercased type names (in the collected RNC) - the current RNC doesn't check for xhtml:div content below XHTML text constructs. These mistakes are mine. I promise to check the schema after every edit next time. Robert Sayre
Re: Status of draft-ietf-atompub-format
Robert Sayre wrote: Graham wrote: On 6 Mar 2005, at 5:15 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote: Your assumption is completely wrong. The WG will review the next draft before passing on to the IETF. The timing of the IETF meeting is completely inconsequential. Can you fill us in on what's happening with the new draft, and what are future timetable looks like? The draft has been submitted. We should be getting an I-D Announce message soon. OK, here are some preliminary comments based on what's available from http://www.atompub.org/2005/03/12/draft-ietf-atompub-format-06.html: - the RNC grammar is still unusable in that TRANG rejects the Schematron extensions; what do I need in addition to TRANG/JING to actually use that file? - after removing the Schematron extensions: the RNC still is broken (missing double quotes after 'text') - (after fixing that as well): atomPlainTextConstruct and atomXHTMLTextConstruct still use uppercased type names (in the collected RNC) - the current RNC doesn't check for xhtml:div content below XHTML text constructs. I've updated my experimental atom-06 feed at http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/webdav.atom. Feedback appreciated... Best regards, Julian
Status of draft-ietf-atompub-format
Hi, apparently, the new draft (06) wasn't finished in time for submission before the meeting cutoff. As this draft is the one that's supposed to be submitted for publication (at least that's my understanding), wouldn't it make a lot of sense to make the current edits available for review (*before* it is committed after the end of the IETF meeting)? Best regards, Julian -- green/bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
Re: Status of draft-ietf-atompub-format
At 11:42 AM +0100 3/6/05, Julian Reschke wrote: apparently, the new draft (06) wasn't finished in time for submission before the meeting cutoff. Correct. As this draft is the one that's supposed to be submitted for publication (at least that's my understanding), wouldn't it make a lot of sense to make the current edits available for review (*before* it is committed after the end of the IETF meeting)? Your assumption is completely wrong. The WG will review the next draft before passing on to the IETF. The timing of the IETF meeting is completely inconsequential. --Paul Hoffman, Director --Internet Mail Consortium
Re: Status of draft-ietf-atompub-format
Paul Hoffman wrote: As this draft is the one that's supposed to be submitted for publication (at least that's my understanding), wouldn't it make a lot of sense to make the current edits available for review (*before* it is committed after the end of the IETF meeting)? Your assumption is completely wrong. The WG will review the next draft before passing on to the IETF. The timing of the IETF meeting is completely inconsequential. OK, thanks for the clarification. Best regards, Julian -- green/bytes GmbH -- http://www.greenbytes.de -- tel:+492512807760
