- From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:38:30 +0100
- To: vcarddav@ietf.org
- CC: WebDAV <w3c-dist-auth@w3.org>
Hi, I just checked, and it appears my comments for draft -00 really haven't been considered yet: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/vcarddav/current/msg00496.html>. Please do so. On reading -01, I found one other issue: when using extended MKCOL, is it required to specify DAV:collection in the resource type? It appears irrelevant (as the resource always will be a collection) -- I don't have any specific preference, but it could be good to clarify that in order to avoid interop problems. Besides that, I found mainly editorial issues (sent privately to Cyrus), such as: 1) too generic references (I prefer when a spec tells the reader which secton to visit), and 2) RFC-Editor nits (unexpanded abbreviations, text talking about "this proposal" instead of "this specification", Title Case in Section Titles) -- I think it's good to have them resolved as early as possible -- the less changes the RFC Editor needs to do, the better (speaking from experience :-). BR, Julian
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2008 16:39:14 UTC