The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'The Metalink Download Description Format '
<draft-bryan-metalink-24.txt> as a Proposed Standard
...
Hi,
I did a quick check on a few XML related issues, and found:
1) References to W3C specs
- the references currently use many different formats (for
seriesName/value), it would be great if those were consistent (I
recommend to use the format used for "REC-xml" for compactness)
- the up-to-date check yielded:
REC-xml-20060816: [FirstEdition] obsoleted by REC-xml-20081126
REC-xml-infoset-20040204: [REC] ok
REC-xml-names-20060816: [FirstEdition] obsoleted by REC-xml-names-20091208
REC-xmlbase-20010627: [FirstEdition] obsoleted by REC-xmlbase-20090128
REC-xmldsig-core-20080610: [REC] ok
(where the out-of-date xml-names reference is excused :-).
2) RNC
- was there an automated check that the collected RNC and the fragments
are in sync? For "metalinkFile" I see a difference in ordering which may
indicate that this didn't always happen (the difference appears to be
irrelevant, but who knows...)
- I found the RNC to miss a few characters (commas, closing braces),
which indicates it may not have been checked recently. I recommend to do
that, and also to validate the examples in the spec against the RNC.
3) XML vs whitespace
I'm not sure I understand the whitespace treatment.
One example has:
<url location="de" priority="1">
ftp://ftp.example.com/example.ext
</url>
while the prose says in Section 3: "Note that there MUST NOT be any
white space in a Date construct or in any IRI."
I personally would prefer that whitespace is NOT ignorable, but in any
case this should be stated somewhere more clearly.
(Note I didn't review the spec, I just did a few XML related checks)
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf