On Mar 17, 2005, at 3:46 PM, Graham wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005, at 9:58 pm, Tim Bray wrote:
[[anchor7: discussion of white space]]
There were a couple of failed white-space Paces, just take this out.
I disagree - the Pace I wrote was about whitespace within content, whereas that anchor is in a section about document syntax. I know there are RSS users who think thinks like rel=" alternate " are acceptable. Some discussion of this would be useful.
I think I'd claim that the spec as-is rules out <link rel=" alternate ">, but if it we have experience from the field saying that this is a common error, I'd have nothing against having something in the spec to head it off.
[[anchor11: Some feelA quick bit of rewording would help. Currently it basically says "The type attribute may have the values..." three times with three different rules. Changing it to "On the summary element, the type atrribute may have the values..." stops the spec being apparently self-contradicting.
type attributes with different allowable values in different elements
is confusing.]].
+1 -Tim
