Robert Sayre wrote:
Julian Reschke wrote:
Update -06: I'm still confused by the text. For instance:
- is it intentional that 4.1.3.3 says ``If the value of "type" ends with "+xml" or "/xml"'', while 4.1.3.2 used ``If the value of type begins with "text/" or ends with "+xml"''?
Yes. In 4.1.3.3, you're supposed to apply them in order. Is that what you find confusing?
Actually, this is what I didn't notice. My fault.
- also, if content for +xml SHOULD be local (4.1.3.2), why does 4.1.3.3. point 4, make statements about situations where it comes with @src attribute?
I don't know. We should be able to strike them, right?
Yes. Either it's a SHOULD level requirement that the content is in-line (in which case we shouldn't say anything about the other case), or IMHO it's not a SHOULD after all.
Maybe it's not a SHOULD requirement after all?
In particular, that's a should against text/plain and text/html in @src.
Hm, I didn't get that. Right now it says (<http://atompub.org/2005/04/04/draft-ietf-atompub-format-07.html#rfc.section.4.1.3.2>):
"If the value of type begins with "text/" or ends with "+xml", the content SHOULD be local; that is to say, no "src" attribute should be provided."
Are you saying that the requirements are different for (i) "text/" and (ii) for "/...+xml"?
Best regards, Julian
