The sentence afterwards is a bit more revealing;
The Atom namespace is reserved for future forward-compatible
revisions of Atom. Future versions of this specification could add
new elements and attributes to the Atom markup vocabulary
There are two ways to read this;
1) Future RFCs that completely replace RFC4287 are the only ones
allowed to add new elements and attributes.
2) Future RFCs that update RFC4287 are allowed to add new elements and
attributes.
Given that we allow pretty much anybody to rock up and add a link
relation with IESG approval, it doesn't seem like a far stretch to me
to say that #2 is the right reading, given that the only real
difference between the two is regarding document structure (i.e., the
whole doc + extension, or just extension).
In other words, by the logic of #1, the only thing James would have to
do is to copy RFC4287, add a section on tombstones, and push it
through the process. That seems pointlessly tortured, to say the least.
I think the most you could say is that #2 needs IESG approval via a
standards-track RFC (again, notice the parity with the link relation
registry), but that's already assumed in the discussions I've seen here.
But that's just my .02.
On 04/01/2008, at 5:02 AM, Bill de hOra wrote:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
On 03/01/2008, at 3:33 PM, Bill de hOra wrote:
1. deleted-entry is now part of the Atom namespace
"The Atom namespace is reserved for future forward-compatible
revisions of Atom." RFC4287, 6.2.
... which begs the question: does this qualify as such?
Not if the word "revision" means what I think it does.
cheers
Bill
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
