Re: well-formedness error

[Danny Ayers <danny666@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Pilgrim wrote:

> http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/08/20/how_liberal_is_too_liberal
>
> """If you want to evangelize within your program, I recommend doing
> something like iCab does. When it encounters a page authored in valid
> HTML, it puts a little green smily icon next to the address bar. News
> aggregators could do something similar: try to parse the feed with a
> real RDF or XML parser (and indicate success with a smily), and only
> fall back to a more liberal parser if the strict parser failed (and
> indicate this with a frown)."""
>  

Mark, of the feed-consumer applications which use your 'Universal' 
parser, what proportion provide some signal that a feed isn't valid XML?


> If the community reaches consensus that "Atom MUST be well-formed
> XML", then I will acknowledge that consensus.  But I will object
> loudly if the community continues to try to redefine "well-formed", or
> define some pseudo-standard of "almost-well-formed" so they can ignore
> specifications they find inconvenient.  Well-formedness includes RFC
> 3023; there is no middle ground.
>
>  

I agree that we should stick to the standards as much as possible, I 
would hope 100%. What I don't see is how defining a pseudo-standard with 
which people comply could be any worse than having real standards and 
expecting people to ignore them in implementation...

Cheers,
Danny.


--

Raw
http://dannyayers.com