On Thu, Aug 04, 2005 at 02:42:31PM +0200, Bjoern Hoehrmann wrote: > * Tim Bray wrote: > >"Implementors are advised that there is a common class of error in > >[...] > > Sorry but this is ridiculous; if we say X MUST Y even though we know > that many X won't Y we are abusing RFC 2119 terminology and make it > much more difficult to evangelize 100% compliance, since this allows > people to argue that compliance with this particular requirement is > not relevant in practise so they can worry less about compliance in > general.
+1 I don't entirely see why having the MUST in place doesn't satisfy this anyway, providing we point out explicitly that whitespace around URIs and dates is an error. This puts a clear restriction on compliant Atom document producers, but lets consumers deal with not-quite-Atom documents that break this particular MUST in any way these choose fit. Some will catch fire. The feed validator will fault them. Others may choose to strip whitespace, in a kind of Postel-like fashion. If this needs pointing out to people writing Atom consuming applications, then it's a job for implementation guidelines in a separate document. That's how I'd expect this sort of thing to be handled in any other IETF spec, certainly; otherwise, as pointed out, no matter what language we use we run the risk of non-conformant Atom documents being considered 'blessed' by our wording. We don't spell out what Atom consumers should do if they encounter a Date construct with "Last Thursday" in, either. Pointing out the common error AS AN ERROR should be sufficient IMHO. J -- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ James Aylett xapian.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] uncertaintydivision.org
