On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 11:04:39 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How would people react to a proposal to take these details out of the > spec and lightly rewrite PaceExtendingAtom to allow "foreign" markup > anywhere? I really like changes that make the spec shorter :) I think that's moving in the opposite direction to what Atom needs for future growth. Constraints make compatibility between extensions easier by clearly demarcating them. After all, why are we using markup in the first place? I think Robert's (unfinished I think) PacePropertyDesign is promising, I'll try and add another compromise Pace in the next few days. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
