[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AD Review Comments and Questions: draft-ietf-atompub-format-07


On Apr 5, 2005, at 8:39 AM, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:

I intend to ask the XML Directorate to review the document during the last
call period. Anything they find can be dealt with along with any other last
call comments.

For the WG's info: The Directorate is a volunteer group of alleged "XML experts" that reviews I-D's that use XML; I'm one of them, BTW.

The document includes an informative RELAX NG schema and several examples.
What has been done to confirm that the schema is free of errors and that all
of the examples given in the document are valid according to the schema? (I
could check an XML Schema myself, but I don't have the tools I need to check
RELAX NG.)

Norm/Rob/Mark?

Sections 1.1, 1.2: RFC 3688/BCP 81 describes IETF practice for naming XML
namespaces. Why are namespace URIs (such as http://purl.org) that don't
conform to this practice being used?

Our plan, as we discussed with you & Ted. last year, is to use a W3C namespace. The current value is a placeholder. Should we note this in -08?

Section 1.2: please reference draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis-00.txt instead
of RFC 2234 and confirm that everything that was valid before is still
valid. The IESG approved this document as a Draft Standard last week.

Rob/Mark?

Section 2 describes a requirement for well-formedness, but it doesn't
mention validity. I suspect that validity isn't a requirement given that
the RELAX NG schema is informative, but it would be better if a specific
statement were included to note that validity is not a requirement.

Hmm, I would say that validity isn't a requirement because the syntactic constraints are (we think) fully given in the text. The group consciously decided not to make the schema normative, for that reason. We do currently say that the schema is non-normative; having said that, a statement that there is no DTD and no validity requirement couldn't hurt. Rob/Mark?

Section 4: RFC 2045 is referenced. 2045 is on its way to being obsoleted by
draft-freed-mime-p4 (in the RFC Editor queue) and draft-freed-media-type-reg
(in last call). Can the more recent documents be referenced instead of
2045?

Rob/Mark?

The MIME media type registration template included in section 7 MUST be
submitted to the ietf-types list (ietf-types@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) for review. A
two-week review period is standard for requests to register new types in the
standards tree. Please see the list archives [1] for samples if help is
needed in crafting a review request and please send the request ASAP.

Scott, what's the scheduling on that? Do we launch that right now, independent of the rest of the document review process?

Section 7.1: what process is the IESG supposed to use to review registration
requests? Please see section 2 of RFC 2434/BCP 26 for mechanisms that might
be used and please specify one in the document.

Paul, care to take the lead on this? -Tim