Editorial comments on draft-ietf-atompub-format-00

[Tim Bray <Tim.Bray@xxxxxxx>]

Do we agree that it's OK to batch up editorial comments like this?

[Page 5/sect 2] Did we agree to deprecate Processing Instructions?  I 
believe not, and this is in conflict with RFC3470, and should be 
removed as an editorial correction.  Unless someone can show me how 
this somehow represents consensus based on earlier discussion.

[Page 5/sect 2] I would suggest, per 3470, that the language saying 
Atom should/may/whatever contain DOCTYPES, PIs, and comments is 
superfluous.

[Page 5, sect 2] I think the paragraph about xml:lang should have a 
reference to http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-lang-tag

[Page 6, sect 3.1.2] the discussion of "escaped" needs a reference to 
what kind of unescaping you're talking about: 
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dt-escape

[Page 7, sect 3.2.2] "atom:url" has to go as an element name.  Either 
"uri" or "web" would be a satisfactory replacement, but since there is 
no in-effect normative text describing what "url" stands for, it's 
really not appropriate.  Same for 4.9 and anywhere else "url" appears.

[page 11, sect 4.12].  Is the text about "xml:lang" here useful, or 
does the discussion above make it superfluous?

[page 12, sect 4.13.1]  I don't think the "title" of a Web Resource is 
a well-defined construct.  It certainly doesn't appear in Web 
architecture.  If you mean "is the same as the contents of the <title> 
element in the case where HTML representations are typically made 
available..." then that's fine.  Or (better) just lose it.

[page 13, sect 4.13.9] Typo in "atom:summary", it says "MAY contain an 
atom:created" you mean "MAY contain an atom:summary"