Re: HTML Markup in RSS Documents
- View SourceI'm not sure I'm following this conversation accurately. But I'd
like to state that the confusion on how to interpret various
elements in the specification would be greatly exascerbated
if "SHOULD" is used. The specification must state clearly whether an
element is HTML Markup or not. Any element could contain HTML, but
if it is optional (e.g. "SHOULD") it must be distinguishable outside
of the markup itself (e.g. an attribute specifying whether the text
within the element is markup).
Reading my response here, it seems like this should be obvious. So
I'm sorry if this is an implicit (or expicit that I haven't read
--- In email@example.com, Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
> rcade wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Sam Ruby <rubys@> wrote:
> >>[lots of stuff on what a complex issue this is]
> > Is it your belief that an author of an RSS document must be able
> > express the content type of an element's character data (text or
> > for aggregators to deal with it correctly?
> Not at all.
> From http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2004/05/28/detente
> If the spec were to be updated to merely say how various textual
> elements SHOULD be interpreted, I would gladly update the
> feedvalidator to provide informational messages when problematic
> values for these elements are detected.
> This offer is still open.
> - Sam Ruby