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

Re: clarification: "escaped"

To: "Bill de hÓra" <bill@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: clarification: "escaped"
From: "Robert Sayre" <sayrer@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:05:47 -0400
Cc: "Atom Syntax" <atom-syntax@xxxxxxx>
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=PHQH35+CCgUHtAQig3eTUE/o6nKEr5r/Bp0XIH+cIICtoO0ZMlIEBEVYU60B5yG+dJXq2AINw7DVwfhfNycngP+OWYpbnRQErsuAZ6OwJuEIvrZKx9IWSeJ5RDPzULMZtA0OJPm1d2ekmoS8UViLegS/l7IjrJ29F3/TPNXy0fo=
In-reply-to: <44C6913E.2030802@xxxxxxxxxx>
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: <44C6913E.2030802@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx


On 7/25/06, Bill de hÓra <bill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


The RFC says that the content should be 'escaped' for type 'text/html'
in 3.1.1.2, but dosn't define what that is.


IIRC, WG discussion touched on this point, and the WG decided the
definition wasn't important, given the example. Is there a problem
you're hoping to clear up?

--

Robert Sayre

"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time."

Follow-Ups:
- Re: clarification: "escaped"
  - From: Bill de hÓra

References:
- clarification: "escaped"
  - From: Bill de hÓra

Prev by Date: clarification: "escaped"
Next by Date: Re: clarification: "escaped"
Previous by thread: clarification: "escaped"
Next by thread: Re: clarification: "escaped"
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread