Inline... > -----Original Message----- > From: Julian Reschke [mailto:julian.reschke@xxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, 14 December 2009 8:00 PM > To: Thomson, Martin > Cc: Anthony Bryan; Apps Discuss; ietf@xxxxxxxx > 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@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf