James M Snell wrote: > > This pace requires that a server either accept > everything that is given to it or declare exactly what it will accept up > front.
If this pace is scheduled, I will -1 it. The APP needs to take a "Small Pieces, Loosely Joined" approach. A server may reject entries that contain pub:slugs that are 32,768 bytes long, or contain text that is critical to the Chinese government, or contain entirely well-formed and valid entries that are encoded in EBCDIC. And yet, very few of us would ever be affected by any such restrictions. Similarly, very few of us would be affected by a site that prohibit markup in titles. I understand that if you view validation as an entirely binary thing - implementations are either valid or they are not - this makes validation impossible. That being said, codifying up a number of common scenarios for people to self-assess their implementation against is still a very worthwhile activity. In my opinion, it is probably worthwhile for the server to indicate that markup is not allowed in titles, and this may in fact be a common enough requirement that it should be a standard extension, but to me this case doesn't rise up to the level of being a core feature of the APP. - Sam Ruby
