James M Snell wrote:
Antone,
Very good write up. The fact that xml:base on div is not valid XHTML is
somewhat irrelevant given that there is an identical problem with
xml:lang. For instance, if I have <content xml:lang="en"><div
xml:lang="fr">...</div></content> and I drop the div silently, then I've
got a problem. Granted, the producer of the atom feed really shouldn't
have done this, but we still need to be able to handle it properly if it
does happen.
I don't agree bug compliance is the way to go. If downstream code has
to patch against broken providers that's a race to the bottom - it's a
culture where specs cease to matter because they can be mercilessly E
and E'd. File a bug report instead.
Otoh if we have spec'd in a feature here which doesn't sit on top on XML
infrastructure properly, that's another matter - "hey, xml lib, handle
this element special like, cos atom markup don't care about clean
layering" sounds like a problem. We seem to keep doing that with xml:*
features (lang, include, base). Atom is to XML as HTML is to SGML?
cheers
Bill
