* Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-04 20:25]: > I'm getting increasingly grumpy and "just fail" is looking > better and better.
The way I read the conversation is that noone will dispute “just fail” if we do choose to adopt it. > I claim that text enjoyed strong, not rough, consensus support > from the WG. And that stance appears not to have changed. > So for now, I'm -1 on an weakening or removing "The element's > content MUST be an IRI" or analogous text in any other > section. I'll stop shouting if I'm in a small minority here. No, you’re in the unanimous majority. What people aren’t sure about is what the spec text means, as it stands. And if the WG can get into such a long discussion about it, that does not bode well for the spec’s interpretation by implementors. The call, therefore, is not to weaken the spec in any fashion, rather just to make it more explicit about intent. Further, having raised this issue with atom:id, it seems prudent to add the same clarification to the text for atom:updated and friends. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
