Dear Barry, Thanks for your feedback. Replies inline. I'm tracking all the points in https://github.com/ietf-wg-httpapi/mediatypes/issues/80 On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 at 09:41, Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? The spec intends the first occurrence found while processing the unicode stream. Do you think that the following sentence is ok? | If multiple nodes would match a fragment identifier, | the first occurrence of such match is selected. > — Section 2.1 — > > Optional parameters: N/A; unrecognized parameters should be ignored > > Maybe “unrecognized parameters are ignored” ? Ok. PR made. > — 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”. Ok. PR scheduled once we move the registration section in the IANA. > — 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. Ok. PR made. > — 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 Ok. PR made. > — 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). You are right. We used the text contained in https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110#name-media-type-registration > 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.) Ok. Thanks again for your review, R. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
