The Atom Syndication Format
RFC 4287

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

(Scott Hollenbeck) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-06-21)
No email
send info
The document says:

3.1.1  The "type" Attribute

   Text constructs MAY have a "type" attribute.  When present, the value
   MUST be one of "text", "html" or "xhtml".  If the "type" attribute is
   not provided, Atom Processors MUST behave as though it were present
   with a value of "text".  MIME media types [MIMEREG] MUST NOT be used
   as values for the "type" attribute.

and Later:

4.1.3.1  The "type" attribute

   On the atom:content element, the value of the "type" attribute MAY be
   one of "text", "html", or "xhtml".  Failing that, it MUST be a MIME
   media type, but MUST NOT be a composite type (see Section 4.2.6 of
   [MIMEREG]).  If the type attribute is not provided, Atom Processors
   MUST behave as though it were present with a value of "text".

While I understand that the 4.1.3.1 text applies to atom:content rather
than more generally, given the MUST NOT vs. MUST here I strongly encourage 
some further efforts to clarify this apparent contradiction.    The first could have a 
forward pointer to the second as a note, the second to the first as a note, or the names
could be disambiguated in some way.  I don't see this as blocking, but I believe it 
would be very useful to get this somewhat clearer.

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection