[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Validing parser required?

To: Atom-Syntax <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Validing parser required?
From: Bill de hÓra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:44:58 +0100
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
References: <>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8a1) Gecko/20040520

Sam Ruby wrote:

In the interest of being "cleanly and thoroughly specified", the AtomPub Working Group should decide whether consumers should be required to use validating XML parsers in order to consistently and correctly handle the Atom feed and protocol.

> [...]

The requirement for a DTD was dropped in both the UserLand 0.91 spec[3] (and has not reappeared in subsequent revisions derived from this spec), nor was is it present in the RSS 1.0 spec[4].

Inline DTDs aside, a DTD for Atom itself doesn't sound feasible given the current spec wording on ordering [1].

cheers
Bill

[1] http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceElementOrder

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Validing parser required?
  - From: Sam Ruby

References:
- Validing parser required?
  - From: Sam Ruby

Prev by Date: PaceNoInfoSet
Next by Date: Re: Validing parser required?
Previous by thread: Re: Validing parser required?
Next by thread: Re: Validing parser required?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread