On 8/2/05, Bill de hÓra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Graham wrote:
> > From atompub-format-10, 4.2.6: "Its content MUST be an IRI" > > > > That to me is demonstrates a very clear intention of the working group > > that the content must be exactly equal to the IRI. My reading too. > I don't want to allow whitespace. But this > > <id> > urn:foo > </id> > > is going to happen, is going to cause problems, and working around it > does not strike me as being something you can foist entirely onto the > spec's end-users. Why is it particularly likely to happen? I don't really understand why this should be treated any differently than the numerous other problematic things that could happen if one doesn't take the spec literally. (I'd suggest spec prose trumps RNG grammar, as there's a lot of other stuff not expressable in the grammar). But now the issue has been raised, it does seem reasonable to add a note (assuming the process is ok for that) to the effect that stray whitespace in content is an error. I can't see how it can be desirable to allow it (though am not given to lying in the road). At the application level we're back to Postel again - publishers shouldn't pump this stuff out, but liberal clients may find it useful to trim whitespace from IRI and date fields. But surely that's outside the scope of the format spec itself. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
