Re: well-formedness error

[Phil Ringnalda <philringnalda@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 11:17:51 -0400, Mark Pilgrim <pilgrim@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> 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.

+1. If you receive text/xml without a charset in the Content-type
header and you encounter a non-US-ASCII character in the body, you
MUST instantly halt and catch fire. You don't know what encoding they
actually intended, and you don't know what bytes represent <, >, and &
in that encoding.

Could we *please* have a Pace with spec text from the draconians? I
don't know of a single liberal who needs or wants any spec text to
validate the things they've been doing all along, so it's in your
hands. Tell us how much you feel the need to say, so we know whether
we can ignore it or not.

Phil Ringnalda