> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Also, does the removal of version imply a resolution to Atom
Component
> > Identification that is the use of atom namespace name changes + mU
to
> > indicate incompatible versions, as I had proposed?
>
> I totally didn't understand that question, and I bet there are others
> similarly puzzled. Want to try again? -Tim
Cough. Sure.
My original pace gives any future of Atom 2 choices for indicating an
incompatible change, but revised with your proposal to:
1. Revise any of the Feed or Entry QNames, ie <atomnext:feed>.
2. Use a mustUnderstand, ie <atom:feed><mu><ns>atomnext</ns></mu>.
I don't like staying just at #2, which is what I think you are implying,
because we shouldn't constrain the future version of Atom in it's
choices for using namespace names to indicate compatible or incompatible
versions.
I'd written up some rules in my pace for the choices that future
extensions or versions, by either atom or not atom authors, could use
namespaces and that included #1 and #2.
Cheers,
Dave
