Bill de hOra wrote:
No, because I see the spirit of the RFC as allowing what it does not
explicitly disallow. Hence the RNC is non-normative.
[snip]
I would say "huge gaping hole in the spec" were it not for my opinion
that the WG worked on a default allow basis and the intent was never to
restrict this kind of usage.
Drats. This thread has seemed to died down. I had hopes...
As you say, the RNC is non-normative. And consumers of Atom need to be
aware that it is quite possible for subsequent RFCs to define new Atom
vocabulary that is to be used as immediate children of atom:feed or
atom:entry, let alone places which are intentional extension points.
Now, as to the feed validator, this is one of those rare times that it
is at cross-purposes with the spec. For the feed validator to be
useful, it needs to be implemented with a "default disallow" policy lest
it accept both atom:category and atom:catagory.
If there is any actual use of atom:link inside of atom:category, I'll
downgrade this to a warning ("might be rejected by code that
overzealously uses the provided RNC as a filter"). If there is any
actual spec for how it is to be used, I'll eliminate the message
completely for the use cases provided by the spec.
- Sam Ruby
