* Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-03 06:30]: > I personally think the framework of specifications is > crystal-clear, and per the letter of the law > > <atom:id> > http://example.com/foo > </atom:id> > > is totally illegal because the string > \nhttp://example.com/foo\n does not conform to the productions > for either URI or IRI.
That is the way I thought of it also. > I am less convinced that people are actually going to do this, > but I do agree that if a substantial number *do* do this, > implementors will simply ignore us and code around it. So if > the WG really thinks this is a sensible clarification I won't > scream too much. I would say the fact that we’ve had a three-day, 40-message thread about what the spec really says here is sufficient precedent to conclude that this needs to be explicit. The ambivalent comment in the relevant section of the RNC grammar is not helping matters either; that one *must* be fixed, informal or no. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
