• To: <bob@w...>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• From: Dave Pawson <dpawson@n...>
• Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 16:57:50 +0000
• In-reply-to: <004201c3db9f$88dd3fb0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>
• References: <004201c3db9f$88dd3fb0$650aa8c0@BOBDEV>

At 19:41 15/01/2004, Bob Wyman wrote:

>     If we pass on the bad stuff, we'll be accused by our clients of
>creating badly formed RSS files. On the other hand, if we "clean up"
>the stuff we find, we may find that the owners of the source feeds
>object to our modifying what they published. Some may thank us for
>fixing obvious problems, however, I'm nervous that one day one of our
>"cleanup" routines will cause a semantic, not just syntactical, change
>in the content... What should we do?

And who might be held liable Bob if its a real nasty error?
   I guess this is how the html mess started.
Lets just....
   then we can just ....


regards DaveP

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
    • From: "Bill Kearney" <wkearney@i...>

• References:
  • Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
    • From: "Bob Wyman" <bob@w...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Judge rules in favor of Eolas
• Next by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Previous by thread: Re: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• Next by thread: Re: Postel's "Law": A question for liberal parsers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread