They would be whatever the IETF agreed them to be. But I'm not sure this
is fruitful - trying to predict criteria to add markup to the Atom
namespace in advance of the markup existing isn't the same as evaluating
specific markup. I can imagine a situation where no new markup needs to
be added to the Atom ns, exactly because of Atom's extension model
doesn't require any processor to understand it. That's not the same as
saying it's entirely arbitrary, nor is it arguing that nothing should
ever be added to the ns.
cheers
Bill
James M Snell wrote:
Let's forget about the tombstone draft for a minute. If there are good
technical and social reasons to add any elements or attributes to the
Atom namespace, what would they be?
- James
Bill de hOra wrote:
[snip]
If there's a good technical or social reason to put tombstones into
the atom namespace, let's hear it.
cheers
Bill
