Re: spec bug: can we fix for draft-11?
Graham said: the format. I will figuratively lie down in the road if anyone suggests whitespace should be allowed around any machine-read content (uris, @type, @rel, etc). +1. Possible whitespace would add general check removal calls to any processor. When you process 100 items, thats not a problem. Staring with 10.000 is begins tu hurt, and will blow it up when you reach 100.000 items. Sascha
Re: spec bug: can we fix for draft-11?
I don't want to allow whitespace. But this id urn:foo /id is going to happen, is going to cause problems, and working around it does not strike me as being something you can foist entirely onto the spec's end-users. [...] When we say MUST above, we need to be clear on how we're supposed to deal with cases where someone does not follow the spec. For example, being clear whether the the above fragment is illegal or requires pre-processing would be useful. All of this will just be work-arounds, as pointed out. [You capture the essence when you mention machine-readable content. Really, that stuff should go into attributes not element content for exactly these kinds of reasons.] Agreed. Why not do it? Instead of item idsome-uri/id ... /item it could read item id=some-uri ... /item As being said, this should have to be applied to all directly machine-generated or machine-readable data. Sascha PS: Please accept my apologies for the strange orthography in my last post - I couldn't get my four espressos this morning :-)
Re: PaceDateofSubject status
Eric Scheid wrote: That message of yours talks about dateline, a similar concept but one which was discussed quite some time before DateOfSubject was proposed (July, vs September) I could not quite see the difference between DateLine and DateOfSubject... Is there any significant difference? Regards, Sascha
Re: PaceDateUpdated2 status
Tim Bray wrote: If there were no further discussion: This topic was beaten to death a few times in the WG. Unless there is a wave of enthusiasm unaccompanied by -1s, the dates in the current Internet Draft will be all that ships with the final document. -Tim +1. I think this really is a consensus. FYI: http://www.itst.org/web/308-atom_04.shtml
Re: PaceDateofSubject status
Tim Bray wrote: If there were no further discussion: This topic was beaten to death a few times in the WG. Unless there is a wave of enthusiasm unaccompanied by -1s, the dates in the current Internet Draft will be all that ships with the final document. That is, PaceDateOfSubject won't go in? +1 to that. Funny enough, I am listed as one of the supporters of this pace. In fact, I am not: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg07767.html
