Subject: [Simple] Nits on XCAP -03

From: Aki Niemi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 15:53:42 +0300

Squeezing these in at the last moment,

These are nits that I found with the XCAP base spec. The bigger issues I
suspect have been resolved on the list already.

There is one controversial idea I'm going to put on the list, but
outside of that, XCAP is good to go IMO.

Cheers,
Aki

---

1) Ch 1., 2nd para., 3rd sentence: "...for the list of is to..." is
unclear.

2) Next sentence, add space after [15].

3) Ch 2., 1st para, "...the HTTP URIs used by XCAP point a
document..."                                            ^to

4) Ch 3., s/RFC 2119/RFC 2119, BCP 14,

5) Ch 4., should add line feeds between definitions to improve
readability.

6) Ch 5.1, half way through 1st paragraph: "...reverse domain name name
of the..." extra "name"

7) Ch 6.1, 1st para., 4th s.: s/doesnt/doesn't

8) Don't understand last sentence of Ch 6.1: if there are two root URIs
"http://192.168.0.1:80/blah/blah/blah" and
"http://my.example.com/blah/blah/blah", then there is clearly
interaction between the resources, no?

9) slash is represented as ("/") in the text. Recommend representing
double tilde the same way, i.e., ("~~"), instead of (~~)

10) Last sentence of Ch 6.2 is hard to parse.

11) Ch 6.3, BNF definition flows over I-D's 72 or so char line

12) After BNF, "...is defined the XML..."
                             ^ in
13) Page 19, 2nd para, 3rd sentence, s/an examples/of examples

13b) same sentence, starting after comma is hard to understand

14) Inconsistent usage of HTTP URL/URI throughout. Recommend choosing
one, and doing a replace all with it.

15) Page 19, last para.: "An elements name is a match..."
                                    ^'
16) Page 20, 1st para., 4th sentence: "If the content of the content..."
"s/content/predicate" for the second appearance of it

17) Page 20, 2nd para.: it would probably be wise to give a reason why
selection based on xmlns attribute is not possible (that is, because XML
says so...)

18) In Fig 3., text above caption should be in caption (in title=""
attribute"

19) Perhaps should stick a comment inside the element in the example,
since the text above the figure sort of suggests it

20) Ch 7. second para., is there a reason why "SHOULD" and not "MUST" in
this passage? I'd say MUST is better, or else give a valid reason for
not doing it.

21) Same goes for the 4th para of Ch 7. about retransmitting

22) Ch 7., para 5, 1st sentence: "...dictate involve..." which one is
it?

23) There are several occurrences of "position-th" in the document. This
may not be self-explanatory to folks, so suggest some text explaining
what that means after the first occurrence.

24) Example request overflows in Ch 7.4.

25) Ch 7.6, 2nd para.: would return all comments, CDATA segments within
those elements as well. Maybe worth noting that.

26) Ch 7.7, 2nd para.: should include a reference for XML 1.0?

27) Example request overflows in Ch 7.7

28) In Ch 8.2.1, 1st para: s/doocuments/documents
29) In ch 8.2.1, 4th para., 1st sentence: s/evaluates in/evaluates it

39) Page 31, 2nd paragrapch: this is specified in detail in the client
section - why not with the same detail here?

40) Page 34, 3rd para.: s/interdependcies/interdependencies

40) Same page, and para: elsewhere in the doc status codes are without
status phrase, however, here they are included for 200/201.

41) Page 35, 2nd para.: s/interdependcies/interdependencies

42) Ch 9.1, definition of <uniqueness-failure> says <exists> can contain
alternate values. Suggest adding that those would go in the <alt-value>
element.

That's all!

_______________________________________________
Simple mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/simple