Tim Bray wrote: > > 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
My point was simply that *we* should make it clear. Either of the texts that Rob proposed [1] is sufficient for my purposes. You appear to have a strong preference for #2, and a strong aversion to #1. I haven't heard anybody opposed to #2. This seems to me to be to be a sufficient basis for the chairs to declare (re-affirm?) consensus on this matter. If either is adopted, I will simply add a slew of tests to [2], ensure that they pass, and commit the change. - Sam Ruby [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg16616.html [2] http://feedvalidator.org/testcases/atom/2/
