On Aug 4, 2005, at 1:04 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
I'm getting increasingly grumpy and "just fail" is looking better and
better. The current normative text, "The element's content MUST
be an
IRI", is clear and simple and supported by other well-understood
normative text, supported by lots of interoperable software, that
make
the meanings of "element", "content", and "IRI" not really open to
intelligent dispute. I claim that text enjoyed strong, not rough,
consensus support from the WG.
I believe that the term "content" is open to intelligent dispute.
Apparently the authors of RFC3470/BCP70 believe so too.
Could you reference that? It seems to me that the guidance we should
take from 3470 is from section 4.16, which seems to me to make it
clear that *we* should make it clear that
<id>
http://example.com/foo
</id>
is an error and nothing but an error. -Tim
