RE: well-formedness error

["Don Park" <donpark@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let's not forget the issue behind the question which is:

  proliferation of invalid feeds

There will always be bugs, so there will always be invalid feeds.  We can
only try to minimize proliferation of invalid feeds.  Are mere words like
MUST enough?  IMHO, they are not.  This is one of the reason I encouraged
Jason to continue with his effort to create a non-profit corporation so we
can get a better handle on conformance.  For example, 'Atom Compliant'
label/logo program backed by legal requirements will complement the MUST and
SHOULD very well, IMHO.

Best,

Don Park
http://www.docuverse.com/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Anne van Kesteren
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 1:57 AM
> To: Atom Syntax
> Subject: well-formedness error
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> -- 
>   Anne van Kesteren
>   <http://annevankesteren.nl/>
> 
>