Re: well-formedness error

[Greg Stein <gstein@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 01:04:40PM +0200, Danny Ayers wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> >Should clients parse or ignore invalid feeds? Is it one of the goals 
> >of Atom to specify this or is it left open for implementors? Does Atom 
> >make  any notes, normative or informative, about it?
> >
> >I think the specification should say something about it, if not 
> >already done, to ensure forward compatible parsing.
> 
> This topic has already been discussed at length. Initially several 
> aggregator vendors were prepared to support a policy of XML-only, but 
> the opportunity for encouraging well-formed data in this way was 
> undermined by those who believe the end user is better served by tools 
> that support invalid feeds.

In HTTP land, the phrase that we use is: "be strict in what you do, but
be lenient in what you accept." The Atom spec would define exactly what
conformance *is*, and if a tool wants to allow some bending of the rules,
then that is the tool's perogative.

>...
> Currently there is considerable support for informing the user that a 
> feed is invalid and also (optionally) providing a notification port 
> server-side through which reports can be made. I personally think that 
> the specification of what constitutes an 'Atom-conformant' tool should 
> be on the job list, to encourage good practices.

IMO, the specification itself is what defines "Atom-conformant". It should
specify each of the rules necessary for conformance. Having a conformance
checking tool (and/or test suite) would be a huge win.

If the user tool provides notification or other features, then that's up
to the tool. I don't think a specification ought to talk about that kind
of stuff -- just what "conformant" means. There is certainly room for
"non-normative" suggestions about tool behavior, but that would generally
be in an informational I-D rather than the Atom spec itself.

Cheers,
-g