Subject: Re: Atom Tombstones Draft Revitalized

From: Mark Nottingham <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 12:31:04 +1000

A couple of small comments --

* The notational conventions needs to mention the use of Relax NG  
Compact Syntax.

* In Security Considerations, the line "Atom processors are advised to  
ignore atom:deleted-entry elements references entries that have not  
previously appeared within the containing Feed document" could be read  
to rule out having a RFC5005 'current' feed head delete entries in the  
archives.

Otherwise, looks good.

On 09/06/2009, at 8:41 AM, James M Snell wrote:

>
> As requested, the Atom Tombstones draft has been revitalized.
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-snell-atompub-tombstones-06.txt
>
> Changed this from Experimental to Informational and updated the IPR  
> boilerplate.
>
> - James
>

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/