1. Is xml:base processing applied to the schema attribute of a Category Construct?
2. Why MUST a feed point to an alternate version. What if the feed is all
I publish?
3. 4.2.2 says
atom:head elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:link element
with a rel attribute value of "alternate" that has the same type
attribute value.
What if the atom:link elments have different hreflang values?
4. 5.14 says
If an atom:entry is copied into one feed from another feed, then the
atom:head element of the source feed SHOULD be inserted into the
atom:entry unless the entry, as copied, already contains an atom:head...
This suggests that atom:head is sometimes a child of atom:entry,
but that doesn't seem to be allowed. Did I miss something?
Or is it supposed to say that the contents of the head are
copied into the entry?
5. 7.1 says
Processing [W3C.REC-xmldsig-core-20020212]. Other XML signature
mechanisms MUST NOT be used on the document element of an Atom
document.
Are we sure we want to prohibit them? How about making this a SHOULD
and pointing out that processors are not required to recognize any
mechanisms except XML DSig? Other mechanisms will be developed.
Some of them may become widely deployed. Do we really want to force
authors to generate non-conformant feeds when they decide to use
them?
I feel the same way about XML 1.1, fwiw, but I expect I'd lose that
fight, so I'll just mention it in passing.
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | It is as easy for the strong man to be
http://nwalsh.com/ | strong, as it is for the weak to be
| weak.-- Emerson
pgpwtSbB6CBDX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
