Robert Sayre wrote:
If I am conflating validity with media types, then so is the XML specification.
I don't understand that, could you explain?
See the XML specification section F.2 [1]. It is quite possible for an XML document to be valid if served with media type application/xml, but for the same document to be valid if served with a media type of text/xml.
Not a situation that I particularly care for. And it is widely ignored. But that's what the specs say.
If the validator does not look to the spec for guidance, where should it look?
If somebody can answer my questions, I would appreciate it..
I think the spec should cover Atom documents identified with the Atom media type. Other types are undefined.
If the behavior is undefined, then people should not expect interoperability. If the only use case for atom:info is based on depending on something that is undefined, then atom:info should be tossed.
We should either explicitly allow application/xml in section 2, or remove this element. I'm not sure which I prefer.
- Sam Ruby
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-guessing-with-ext-info
