* Tim Bray [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-08-03 06:30]:
I personally think the framework of specifications is
crystal-clear, and per the letter of the law
atom:id
http://example.com/foo
/atom:id
is totally illegal because the string
\nhttp://example.com/foo\n does not conform to the
Hi Sam:
This is very a nice summary. Would just query the words:
If you own your own Internet domain,
Was my understanding that domain names were leased, not owned. One of the
Internet's dirty little secrets.
Cheers,
Tony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 3 Aug 2005, at 2:04 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:
A note that Atom processors may consider leading and trailing space as
significant in attribute and element values would be enough to alert
people to the interoperability issues.
+1
Graham
Published yesterday on developerWorks.
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/xml/library/x-atom10.html
Comments welcome.. I'll publish clarifications/corrections on my
developerWorks blog.
On 02/08/2005, at 9:15 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
So if the WG really thinks this is a sensible clarification I won't
scream too much.
It's probably necessary any way, because RFC3470/BCP70 Section 4.16
encourages specs to give guidelines about white space;
Implementers might safely assume
So, if I read you correctly, it sounds like you have a method whereby
a 'top20' feed wouldn't need history:prev to give the kind of history
that you're thinking of, right?
If that's the case, I'm tempted to just tweak the draft so that
history:stateful is optional if history:prev is
