Thursday, January 13, 2005, 8:17:58 PM, you wrote:
> Danny Ayers wrote: >> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:45:07 +0000, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I very much like the general approach of this Pace, I reckon it's very >> close to what's needed. >> >> If there is some way to lose atom:notation without introducing >> ambiguity it would be better (if something is needed, what about >> atom:type as used on content - might that be a suitable replacement?) > How about: "a Structured Extension construct must have at least one > required attribute or one required child element"? Yeah, that would work, but it would mean that a Structured Extension such as: <ex:info>some <b>mixed</b> content</ex:info> would need to force an unnecessary attribute in there. Probably not a big problem though. An advantage of explicit atom:notation attributes, is that we could make atom:notation values extensible in the same way as link rel values, so that other standard notations could be defined that were more expressive than Simple Extensions (with "structured" as the fallback interpretation for unknown notations). But I don't know whether that would be useful. I'm undecided. The requirement for explicit namespace qualification of the atom:notation attribute is ugly, this would be tidier. -- Dave
