Subject: Atom syndication schema

From: Norman Walsh <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:07:38 -0500

I recall a thread not too long ago about changes to the Atom schema
and Uche has pointed out some deficiencies

  http://copia.ogbuji.net/blog/2006-02-06/Small_fix_

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?

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <[email-masked]> | A man may by custom fortify himself
http://nwalsh.com/            | against pain, shame, and suchlike
                              | accidents; but as to death, we can
                              | experience it but once, and are all
                              | apprentices when we come to it.--
                              | Montaigne

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 13:21:30 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Norman Walsh [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 1:08 PM
> To: Atom Syntax
> Subject: Atom syndication schema
> 
> 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?

Errors in RFCs can be captured as errata by sending a note to the RFC
Editor:

http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.html

The idea is that they should eventually get taken care of by an update to
the RFC.

-Scott-

---

From: "A. Pagaltzis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 20:58:36 +0100

* Norman Walsh <[email-masked]> [2006-02-10 19:20]:
>does the group have any desire to see a "WG endorsed" set of
>fixes published?

+1, FWIC.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

---

From: Uche Ogbuji <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:40:05 -0700

> 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.
http://uche.ogbuji.net                    http://fourthought.com
http://copia.ogbuji.net                   http://4Suite.org
Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/