Reviewer: Barry Leiba
Review result: Ready with Nits
Thanks for this. I have a few comments, but they're all very minor:
— Section 1.2.1
If multiple nodes would match a fragment identifier, the first such
match is selected.
I don’t know what “first” means here — alphabetically first, sequentially first
in a set, something else? Is this clear enough for someone who actually uses
YAML, or can/should it be clarified?
— Section 2.1 —
Optional parameters: N/A; unrecognized parameters should be ignored
Maybe “unrecognized parameters are ignored” ?
— Section 2.2 —
The suffix +yaml MAY be used with any media type whose representation
follows that established for application/yaml.
This strikes me as a “may”, not a “MAY”.
Fragment identifier considerations: Differently from application/
yaml, there is no fragment identification syntax defined for
+yaml.
“Differently from” isn’t proper English here. I think you want “Unlike”.
— Section 3.5 —
Implementers need to consider that the YAML version and supported
features (e.g. merge keys) can impact on the generation of the
representation graph (see Figure 9).
The phrase “impact on” is non-standard English; please consider “affect”
instead.
— Section 4.2 —
YAML documents are rooted, connected, directed graphs and can contain
reference cycles, so they can't be treated as simple trees (see
Section 3.2.1 of [YAML]). An implementation that attempts to do that
can infinite-loop traversing the YAML representation graph at some
point, for example:
I find the antecedent to “do that” to be unclear, and using “infinite-loop” as
a verb seems odd. I suggest this:
NEW
An implementation that treats them as simple trees risks going into an
infinite loop while traversing the YAML representation graph. This
can happen:
END
— Section 5 —
IANA has updated the "Media Types" registry at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types
(https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types) with the registration
information provided below.
I presume the duplication of the URI is an artifact of the markup. But IANA
has not, in fact, made these updates yet (I looked). I suggest “IANA is asked
to update…”, and the RFC Editor will change this when they have confirmed that
IANA has taken the requested actions. (This situation occurs twice in Section
5.)
--
Barry
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
