Re: Feedback on 0.3 Format

[Graham <dtcd@xxxxxxx>]

On 19 Dec 2003, at 8:38 pm, Sam Ruby wrote:

> How would you recommend that this be expressed?

http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg01731.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg01734.html
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg01740.html

For god sake Sam, I thought this was just a misunderstanding on your 
part? There's no point repeating thought exercises when you haven't 
answered anyone else's points. The meaning of escaped you supplied 
couldn't be applied consistently, had a redundant level of escaping, 
and made no sense whatsoever. The retro-fitted definition Tim gave 
bared no relation to *why* escaped content exists. I don't recall 
anybody being confused in this way before.

(I'm coming down with flu so this is the least grouchy I can be today)

Graham