RE: Well-formedness statistics

["Dare Obasanjo" <dareo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have better things to do with my time than engage in pedantic arguments with you. I think it's inconsistent, you believe it isn't since it follows the letter of some poorly thought out specs. Fine. 
 
I have work to catch up on before I go on vacation. See ya. ;) 
 
-- 
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
There are always two solutions to the problem: yours and the boss's. 

________________________________

From: Mark Pilgrim [mailto:pilgrim@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wed 6/23/2004 8:52 AM
To: Dare Obasanjo
Cc: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Well-formedness statistics



On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:41:22 -0700, Dare Obasanjo <dareo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This doesn't seem very consistent to me. On the one hand taking the MIME type seriously enough that encoding mismatches are called well-formedness errors but on the other ignoring it and resorting to content sniffing if the MIME type isn't an XML MIME type.

It would be more helpful if you could provide quotes from relevant
specifications.

> RE http://www.25hoursaday.com/rss10.xml <http://www.25hoursaday.com/rss10.xml>
>
> That isn't my feed.

It is a feed, and it is on your domain.

--
Cheers,
-Mark