Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Didier PH Martin" <email@example.com>
- To: "'XML Dev'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 10:06:01 -0400
> What it is doing is taking content which is *not* in conformance with
> either the W3C Character Model or RFC2396, and silently fixing it up so
> that it *does* conform when dereferencing URLs.
> This is supposed to happen on authoring (so the content is valid), not
> as a form of retrospective error correction.
This reminds me of IETF arguments we got several years ago.
a) If we impose to the author that a URL is well formed and correctly
encoded. This means that any URL entered in the address box (an authoring
tool) should be correctly encoded. Is this realistic?
b) What is the difference between the two authoring tools a) the address
box, b) a HTML editor. You can say that both should correct the encoding by
replacing " " by "%20". Then, it seems that the biztalk author has a bad
It remains that a good browser should try to recover as much as possible
from the errors created by authors (and if possible correct). The best thing
is to help us by reporting the problem to Mozilla.org so that this
deficiency is corrected.
Didier PH Martin
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:email@example.com
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)