• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>
• Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 18:20:23 -0800
• In-reply-to: <p06010202bc2a75fa326f@[192.168.254.4]>
• References: <p06010202bc2a75fa326f@[192.168.254.4]> <40048CA2.2070609@g...> <r02000200-1028-D1176A3A460611D8AD220003937A08C2@[192.168.124.11]> <5B1A714A-461A-11D8-8ADE-000A95CCC59E@x...> <200401140201.i0E21to01550@d...>

Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
> >In fact any aggregator that doesn't do something like this
> >is doomed to fail -- *nobody's* feed has the encoding labelled
> >properly.  (Well, maybe not "nobody", but certainly not very many.)
>
> Certainly not nobody. My feeds are strictly always well-formed.
> [...]

Actually, I haven't found well-formedness to be much of
a problem, at least in the feeds I'm subscribed to.

I was talking about the encoding: what the HTTP Content-Type
header says and what the XML declaration says don't always
agree with each other, and don't always accurately reflect
what encoding the document is actually in.


--Joe English

  jenglish@f...

• References:
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: Julian Reschke <julian.reschke@g...>
  • Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: Michael Champion <mc@x...>
  • Re: Postel's law, exceptions
    • From: Joe English <jenglish@f...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by Date: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Previous by thread: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Next by thread: Re: Postel's law, exceptions
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread