Éric Araujo <mer...@netwok.org> added the comment: First, I’d like to remind that the robots spec is not an official Internet spec backed up by an official body. It’s also not as important as (say) HTTP parsing.
For this bug, IMO the guiding principle should be Postel’s Law. What harm is there in being more lenient than the spec? People apparently want to parse the robots.txt with blank lines from last.fm and whitehouse.gov, and I don’t think there are people that depend on the fact that blank lines cause the rest of the file to be ignored. Hence, I think too that we should be pragmatic and allow blank lines, to follow the precedent established by other tools and be pragmatic. If you feel strongly about this, I can contact the robotstxt.org people. ---------- nosy: +eric.araujo _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13281> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
