> -----Original Message----- > From: Tim Bray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 08, 2005 1:58 AM > To: Sam Ruby > Cc: atom-syntax@imc.org > Subject: Re: spec bug: can we fix for draft-11? > > > > On Aug 4, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Sam Ruby wrote: > > > Tim Bray wrote: > > > >> > >> I'm getting increasingly grumpy and "just fail" is looking > better and > >> better. The current normative text, "The element's content MUST > >> be an > >> IRI", is clear and simple and supported by other well-understood > >> normative text, supported by lots of interoperable > software, that > >> make > >> the meanings of "element", "content", and "IRI" not really open to > >> intelligent dispute. I claim that text enjoyed strong, not rough, > >> consensus support from the WG. > >> > > > > I believe that the term "content" is open to intelligent dispute. > > Apparently the authors of RFC3470/BCP70 believe so too. > > Could you reference that? It seems to me that the guidance > we should > take from 3470 is from section 4.16, which seems to me to make it > clear that *we* should make it clear that > > <id> > http://example.com/foo > </id> > > is an error and nothing but an error. -Tim
That's my interpretation of what we (the authors of 3470) wrote, too. Knowing that white space is significant, you guys need to explain what to do with it. -Scott-