Inline...
-----Original Message-----
From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian(_dot_)reschke(_at_)gmx(_dot_)de]
Sent: Monday, 14 December 2009 8:00 PM
To: Thomson, Martin
Cc: Anthony Bryan; Apps Discuss; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: XML related issues in metalink, was: Last Call: draft-
bryan-metalink (The Metalink Download Description Format) to Proposed
Standard
Thomson, Martin wrote:
Why is whitespace so important? The alternative to constraining use
as you have done, which requires that you also "fix" all the examples,
is to use the type that fits better with user expectations: token.
IMHO, what's important is to decide, to specify it properly, and to
have examples consistent with it. And, optimally, test cases.
I tend to favour non-significant whitespace - it fits with common expectations.
After all, the examples seem to assume that.
But in the end, making a decision and sticking to it is the best plan.
Well, by making it non-significant, you'll might get interop problems
as well.
It's XML. Of course there will be whitespace issues.
In looking into this, I noted this:
# Unconstrained; it's not entirely clear how IRI fit into
# xsd:anyURI so let's not try to constrain it here
I wonder why you haven't taken the plunge on xsd:anyURI, even if
xsd:anyURI has dubious official status with regards to IRIs. In
practice, IRIs are commonly placed in xsd:anyURI. The lexical space
accommodates them, no implementation I'm aware of prevents use of IRIs.
I'll assume it's inherited from RFC 4287, and that the Atom WG had good
reasons not to use xsd:anyURI...
Ah. Can't argue with inherited wisdom.
Best regards, Julian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf