how do you comment on RFC? - rfc

is there general guideline about writing comment on RFC?

According to the IETF, once published, an RFC does not change. Errata can be submitted to the editor at rfc-editor.org. Comments on unpublished RFCs can be submitted to the relevant IETF working groups or to the author(s) directly.

http://www.rfc-editor.org/styleguide.html

Related

Storing bank account in vCard file

Question from the title - is it possible to store bank account number in vCard? Does the specification says something? Any guidelines?
m.
Yes. vCARD supports extensions, which means you could use something like
X-BANK-ACCOUNT-NUMBER:12345678
Or, you could just put the details in the comments field.
You can read more about the vCARD extensions on Wikipedia.
I am not an expert on this topic. That said, I strongly recommend against storing any sensitive information in a vCard. As far as I know, vCard does not support encryption (someone please correct me if I am mistaken).

Which microformats should my blog implement?

Or microdata, RDF(a) or others.
'entities' a blog has would include posts, comments, taxonomies and users.
For posts I found BlogPosting and hAtom, which is a draft spec.
hCard and rel="tag" come to mind for users and taxonomies, but what do you think?
Big discussion in the community about this specific topic. I would go for schema.org - Bing's, Google's and yahoo's recent schema proposal. That is (quoting them):
This site provides a collection of
schemas, i.e., html tags, that
webmasters can use to markup their
pages in ways recognized by major
search providers.
... see BlogPosting for their specific schema for blog postings.
And they also provide a mapping data model to use RDFa ... see this other one
More RDFa related, there is a port of schema.org by the Linked Data comunity RDFa using URIs here, quoting again ...
This site is a complementary effort by
people from the Linked Data community
to express the terms provided by the
Schema.org consortium in RDF. We
currently provide static RDFS
documents of the Schema.org terms in
the formats listed below - and yes,
we're heavily working on more ;)
Which one to use ? As I said, there's a big discussion going on right now around this issue.

Authoritative SQL standard documentation

I'm curious to know some more details about the various SQL standard's, i.e. SQL-92, SQL:99, SQL:2003, SQL:2008 etc. There is a short and useful overview on Wikipedia, with links to very expensive documents. Why are those documents not open to public? Can I find some open and free information?
Please, don't post links you found from Google. I'm interested in somewhat authoritative documentation only.
Quoting from one of my web sites:
We all love open source software. Wouldn’t it be great if
international standard documents such as the SQL standard would be
open too?
As a matter of fact: they are!
However, they are not free—just public. Very much like open source
software is not necessarily free. Too often, we neglect these
differences. Just because we have to pay for the standard doesn't mean
it is secret.
A download of the most relevant part of the SQL standard—part 2—is
available for USD 60 at ANSI. A CD with all parts on it can be bought
from ISO for CHF 352. Not free, but affordable.
You mentioned in some comments that you are mostly interested in part 2, so spending USD 60 might be your best option.
If you just need to know about the syntax up to 2003, there are two great free resources:
BNF grammar of SQL-92, SQL:1999 and SQL:2003: http://www.savage.net.au/SQL/
Online validator for SQL:1999: https://developer.mimer.com/services/sql-validator-99/
Finally, the complete text of “SQL-99 Complete, Really” is available at the MariaDB knowledge base. However, this book was written in 1999 when no database actually supported the described features. Keep that in mind when using this resource.
Other answers also mentioned "free" copies of the standards available on the web. Yes there are—those are mostly draft versions. I can't tell which of them are legal, so I rather not link them.
Finally a little self ad: I've just launched http://modern-sql.com/ to explain the standard in an easily accessible way to developers. Note that the actual standards text is written like laws are written :) Depending on your background, that might anyway not what you want.
The Postgresql Developer FAQ maintains links to each of them:
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#Where_can_I_get_a_copy_of_the_SQL_standards.3F
There are some hyperlinked versions of 92, 99 and 2003 here
However, I've never been able to use them effectively (read: I gave up).
This 92 text is useful (and is quoted here on SO several times)
ISO/IEC 9075-1:2011 -- google that.
Actually, digging around I found
http://www.incits.org/standards-information/
and it has freely availble section that clicks to something that redirects to here:
http://standards.iso.org/ittf/PubliclyAvailableStandards/index.html
And finally the standards.
You have to accept a license agreement to download a pdf.
However, from what I have read in my pursuit - the RDMS well the 'RD' part is going the way of the dinosaur.. If you are building something new (therefore want the new standards) you may want to reconsider all options.
You don't have to pay for all of the standards. SQL-92 is freely available, for instance.

Transactionscope

Where can I reference TransactionScope? What is it used for? Where can I have information related to that?
Can it be used to solve nested transactions?
Ayende Rahien has also discussed this on his blog
Regarding nested transactions read this S.O. post which actually gives you quite a bit of info. Also see this other S.O post
edit You can also do a search on the nhusers group as this provides quite a bit of info how people use the transactionscope. Also read this post as it provides more info

What RFC's are good to know as a web-developer?

What RFC's are good to know as a web-developer?
RFC 2616 about HTTP would be relevant, but I am not really sure RFCs are the best way to learn about web applications. Some RFCs are long, very detailed and not really useful as a general introduction IMO.