--On Monday, January 24, 2005 04:17:40 PM -0800 Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If there were no further discussion: The WG completely failed to converge to consensus on these issues last time around. Consensus can still be found here. -Tim
I'm +1 on this, and feel that it belongs in the spec. This is a constraint on the format of the feed document, and is testable.
Forbidding re-parsing (6.2) is OK, and not a restatement of the XML spec. If you use a parser which isn't an XML parser, it might process the doc. This says you can't do that.
I think that the rationale misstates the Pace. It says that Atom feeds must always be ASCII, but the proposal only requires that for text/xml feeds. application/xml feeds may use UTF-8, either in an encoding declaration or with a charset parameter.
I would add a note that 3023 is normative, and maybe move the notes in 6.1 to an appendix.
Are we sure we want "RFC 3023 or its successor" instead of "RFC 3023"? A successor could make some Atom feeds illegal without a change to the Atom spec.
wunder -- Walter Underwood Principal Architect Verity Ultraseek
