Atom License Extension
RFC 4946

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

Lars Eggert No Objection

Comment (2007-01-11 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2007-01-10 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
RFC 4287 says:

   Atom allows the use of IRIs [RFC3987].  Every URI [RFC3986] is also
   an IRI, so a URI may be used wherever below an IRI is named.  There
   are two special considerations: (1) when an IRI that is not also a
   URI is given for dereferencing, it MUST be mapped to a URI using the
   steps in Section 3.1 of [RFC3987] and (2) when an IRI is serving as
   an atom:id value, it MUST NOT be so mapped, so that the comparison
   works as described in Section 4.2.6.1.

This document says:

   The IRI specified by
   the link's 'href' attribute SHOULD be dereferenceable to return a
   representation of the license.  The license representation MAY be
   machine readable.

That is, this document is specificying derferencable resources which
MUST be mapped to URIs, according RFC 4287.  I believe that this
document would be clearer and implementations more likely to
interoperate if this document stated that the URI form of the IRI
is required.

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-01-09 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I have some grief with the how they use the term "machine readable". To me that would imply that there was one or more formats of something were my application could figure out it was allows to say copy this or repost it. The example given does not seem machine readable to me and the document does not reference any machine readable formats or provide a negotiation form for them. 

I think the document is lacking an application to be able to interpret the license and if the application can not interpret the license, I see little value (other than saved bandwidth) of this over the <rights> tag. 

I don't see the document causing lots of harm - it just looks useless.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info