RE: well-formedness error

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hoffman / IMC [mailto:phoffman@xxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 3:29 PM
> To: Dare Obasanjo; danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: well-formedness error
> 
> At 1:53 PM -0700 6/16/04, Dare Obasanjo wrote:
> >  3 would be rejected flat out since their MIME type claimed they 
> >weren't XML
> 
> OK, that's bad. Out of curiosity, what did those three claim to be?

application/octet-stream, text/plain & text/html actually. 

> >  4 would be rejected because their MIME contained incorrect 
> or missing 
> >charset information
> 
> That seems irrelevant as long as the XML received had the 
> encoding in the ?xml entry correct for the object itself.

Nope. Read RFC 3023. Specifically 

"if the media type given in the Content-Type HTTP header is text/xml,
text/xml-external-parsed-entity, or a subtype like
text/AnythingAtAll+xml, then the encoding attribute of the XML
declaration within the document is ignored completely, and the encoding
is

1. the encoding given in the charset parameter of the Content-Type HTTP
header, or 
2. us-ascii."

All 4 feeds claimed to be text/xml with no charset parameter meaning
that I was supposed to treat them as us-ascii even though their actual
encodings were UTF-8, Windows-1252 and ISO 8859-1. 

Many realize this is a bug in RFC 3023 but no one seems to have
initiated the process to get the RFC fixed. 

--
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM 
If you think practice makes perfect-you haven't had a child taking
violin lessons.       

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.