> -----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-

Reply via email to