[Prev] Thread [Next]  |  [Prev] Date [Next]

Re: Editorial issues in protocol-13 draft Julian Reschke Fri Feb 16 06:04:24 2007

Tim Bray schrieb:

I'm basically OK with the protocol as specified here. However, I turned up a fair number of style and language issues, none of which affect the specification of the protocol, but which in aggregate I think may hurt the usability of the specification by its intended audience. So, <co-chair-hat mode="on">I'd like the WG to consider whether they think we should go for IETF last call with this draft, or do an editorial-upgrade refresh and take that.</co-chair-hat>

Editorial issues:


"can" and "may". There are many places where the draft uses the word "can"where I would normally expect the word "may" to appear in a specification. Is this perhaps due to a desire to avoid colliding with RFC2119 MAY? Anyhow, I think a quick trawl through the draft and looking at each instance of "can" might be worthwhile. Some of them might even by MAY?

Some examples:
Collections: Sets of resources, which can be retrieved in whole or in part.

Don't see a problem here. Certainly not "MAY".

For convenience, this protocol can be referred to as the "Atom Protocol" or "APP".


Media Resources can have representations in any media type.

Look good to me.

Such foreign markup can be used anywhere within a Category or Service Document unless it is explicitly forbidden.


The app:categories element can contain a "fixed" attribute, with a value of


Implementers can investigate and use alternative mechanisms regarded as equivalently good or better at the time of deployment.



Best regards, Julian