On Wednesday, January 12, 2005, at 05:27 PM, David Powell wrote:
Wednesday, January 12, 2005, 10:51:58 PM, you wrote:The root element of a Structured Extension construct MAY have attributes, it MAY contain well-formed XML content, or it MAY be empty.
It took me a minute to realize that the content of a structured extension element could be a text node--that it needn't have element children.
The name "structured extension" lends itself to this misperception.
I considered calling them Custom Extensions - maybe that would have been clearer?
As long as the explanation is clear, "structured extension" is probably fine.
No, not really. It basically just means: "somebody needs to define an extension before it can be used".
Were you having trouble with the "Atom extension specification" bit in just 9.1.1, or for 9.1.2 aswell?
Both places, though more in 9.1.1 because of its juxtaposition to the "compatible vocabulary" part, which talks about technologies I'm not particularly familiar with.
Would it help if I made another bulleted list for what should be defined for 9.1.1?
....I don't know. I'd have to see it and see how it related or didn't relate to the "compatible vocabulary" stuff.
I'm not sure 9.1.1 and 9.1.2 are necessary though.
