Erik Wilde wrote: > Brian Smith wrote: > > There are other similar issues too. For example, some parts of > various Atom > > specifications use a comparison function for atom:link/@type that > isn't > > defined. I do the comparison the same way as we do in HTTP (case- > insensitive > > except for quoted values, whitespace normalized, parameter-for- > parameter > > comparisons). Another example is atom:link/@length which doesn't have > a > > normative grammar. I use "DIGIT+" as the grammar in my projects. > > Are these things discussed in an erratum or in some other well-know > place or document? http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=4287 > does not show any atom errata, and the things you are mentioning > (undefined comparisons, missing grammars) should definitely be recorded > somewhere, shouldn't they?
At one point I had collected a bunch of minor issues like this with RFC 4287 and RFC 5023, and I even shared a few on the list in the past. After trying to work with AtomPub for a while I've realized that AtomPub is a useless standard and Atom usually causes more problems than it solves. I may be able to dig up the list of issues if somebody else is interested in doing something with them. - Brian
