[wsrp] [errata #28] Require URL rewriting expressions to be valid for mimetype?

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

Comment: #28. 6/19/03 (Andre + many
others) 
Should we require that our URL expression
be encoded such that it is valid for the mime type into which it is placed?


Document: Spec
Section: 10.2.1
Old Text: [insert] The
Consumer is NOT REQUIRED to process URLs 
New Text: Consumers
MUST accept both the “&” character and the corresponding entity reference
(i.e. “&”) as separators between the name/value pairs as this
allows portlets to produce markup fragments valid for a larger range of
mime types. We encourage portlets to use the entity reference form (“&”)
in static markup as this is likely to result in the ability to include
that markup in a larger set of enclosing mime types.

Document: Spec
Section: 10.2.1.8
Old Text: & (8 occurrences)
New Text: &

Document: Spec
Section: 10.2.2
Old Text: & (1 occurrence)
New Text: &

Document: Spec
Section: 10.2.3
Old Text: NameValuePairs = (“&” NameValuePair)*

New Text: NameValuePairs
= ((“&” | “&”) NameValuePair)*