Re: Feedback on 0.3 Format

[Sam Ruby <rubys@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Graham wrote:
> 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)

Just having gotten over the flu, grouchiness is most understandable.

The trouble with mailing lists is that there can often be multiple 
concurrent and overlapping discussions.  In the question you quoted 
above, I literally meant "you" to mean "Dare Obasanjo".  People have 
taken positions on HTML from no escaping ever, to always double escape. 
 Some people are clear on their position.  I was not able to read 
Dare's opinions in his writings to date, so I asked.  If that's a sin, 
go ahead and shoot me.  ;-)

Anyway, Dare recommended the following:

  <title>Ode to the &lt;title&gt; tag</title>

I tested it, and RSSBandit displays this as intended.  SharpReader and 
Radio Userland do not.  Question: how does Shrook handle such today? 
Anybody else know how other existing newsreaders handle this?

By the way, I agree with Dare.  This feels to me like the right way to 
express this particular title.  Anybody care to disagree?

> Graham

- Sam Ruby