W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access-comments@w3.org > July 2011

Re: [ietf-types] Request for review: application/evd+xml media type

From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 11:22:06 -0400 (EDT)
To: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
cc: ietf-types@ietf.org, public-ws-resource-access-comments@w3.org, Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>, ietf-xml-mime@imc.org
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1107071120380.5919@wnl.j3.bet>
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote:

> * Yves Lafon wrote:
>> Here is the registration document for the application/evd+xml media
>> type [1] by the W3C Web Services Resource Access Working Group [2].
>
> Has this been submitted before? It seems to me that the document has had
> Candidate Recommendation status for a couple of months, and W3C policy
> is to submit on entering Last Call, but there is nothing in my archives.

It hasn't, unfortunately. A missed step that we are trying to recover 
from.

>> <<<
>> This appendix defines the 'application/evd+xml' media type which can be
>> used to describe EventDescription documents serialized as XML.
>>
>> MIME media type name:
>
> You are using an outdated template, the current template is in RFC 4288.
> The current templates structures and names some fields differently.
>
>> Security considerations:
>>
>>     none
>
> Well, at the very least you should point out that the ones in RFC 3023
> are likely to apply to implementations of the specific type here aswell.
>
>> Interoperability considerations:
>>
>>     There are non known interoperability issues.
>
> This looks like a typo.
>
>>     Fragment identifiers:
>>     An EventDescriptions fragment identifier references a particular Event
>> Type within an EventDescriptions document. The Event Type referenced is
>> the Event Type with the @id attribute whos value equals that of the
>> fragment identifier component.
>
> In addition to the typo, this seems insufficient and I am not sure how
> compatible this is other types and what some people would like to change
> the existing specifications to. I note in particular that you don't say
> whether for instance "#x" would match id=' x ' (note the spaces); I also
> note that you don't define the `id` attribute as ID attribute and don't
> say how this works for actual ID attributes or magic ones like xml:id.
>
>>     Base URI:
>>     As specified in [RFC 3023] section 6.
>
> The only reason to include this that I can think of is to mislead people
> into thinking RFC 3023 has anything to say on that even though it does
> not. If you don't want to say anything about Base URIs, then don't.
>

-- 
Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras.

         ~~Yves
Received on Thursday, 7 July 2011 15:22:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 7 July 2011 15:22:08 GMT