APP-Basic Issues List

Current working copy: [WWW]draft-sayre-atompub-protocol-basic-05pre

substance summary raised by resolution
field name pub:edit vs. link[rel="edit"]... I prefer the -05 link relations. James Snell
bureaucratic I asked Mr Safe style questions about XoXo a while back, and didn't get any good answers Bill de Hora
technical -1 on the XOXO approach because you need a mime-type to dispatch on, particularly when doing introspection. Joe Gregorio closed by author
technical pub:control is necessary various included in -04 onwards
technical pub:control doesn't do anything, and should be removed Luke Arno
field name change pub:edit to "entry's edit link" with a relation of some sort Luke Arno
bureaucratic charter deadlines Robert Sayre
technical -1 on losing date/index queries. They're easy to understand, tractable to implement, and add value. Tim Bray [WWW]draft-sayre-atompub-protocol-seek-00
technical server needs signal to update atom:updated Tim Bray
technical server doesn't need signal to update atom:updated (The way that is defined makes it no different from a title.) Roy Fielding
technical app:modified Eric Sheid / Thomas Broyer
technical it is plausible to think that we could specify things in such a way that that atom:entry is not in fact conformant to all the rules of atom-format; Tim Bray
specification style XOXO underspecified James Snell
specification style definition pub:control is underspecified James Snell
technical member listing is missing James Snell
technical 4xx-5xx response body James Snell
bureaucratic Potential naming conflicts with other proposed microformats ( James Snell
bureaucratic It's unclear (to me at least) as to whether the contents of a wiki page ( can be normatively referenced. James Snell
autodiscovery How the service outline is discovered is not documented. Eric Sheid
bureaucratic Tomorrow I might go propose a microformat named YOYO, with @rel values of 'text' and 'media' ... would that be a conflict? Eric Sheid
specification style capabilities discovery being mentioned but never defined James Snell reworded in -05
specification style Ok, referencing 2616 is perfectly acceptable of course, but, gee, it sure would be nice if such references were documented in the draft. What is obvious to you may not be obvious to folks implementing your draft. James Snell
?????????? There's a difference between collection _grouping_ and collection _nesting_ (note that I used the term "workspace" but I'm open to something else –group?) Thomas Broyer