[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Atom syndication schema
Norman Walsh wrote:
> I recall a thread not too long ago about changes to the Atom schema
> and Uche has pointed out some deficiencies
> I'd be happy to tweak the schema and try to address these bugs, but
> does the group have any desire to see a "WG endorsed" set of fixes
> published? And if it does, where should they be published?
I didn't put my thoughts through the RFC errata process because the main
bug I saw was in the non-normative schema, and anyway I don't know that
there is a full RELAX NG file corresponding to the full RFC (as opposed
to the revision 11 I-D). I figured I might as well host such an RNG,
and while at it I might as well bring the RNG a bit more in line with
the spec wording. I didn't know whether that was something that could
be considered a formal erratum.
There other things I brought up in my Weblog I do believe are nits in
Atom, but I don't think they rise to the level of actual errata.
If there is some aspect of my comments that folks do think is worthy of
a formal erratum, let me know and I'll do what I can to submit it.
Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc.