On Monday, January 24, 2005, at 02:03 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Atom processors MAY interpret unprefixed attribute names as their
namespace-qualified equivalents.
If they do, then all Atom attribute names MUST appear in the Atom namespace.
I'd suggest slightly different language, such as:
"Atom processors MAY interpret unprefixed attribute names in elements from the Atom namespace as if they were in the Atom namespace."
Why I prefer the above:
1) It explicitly applies this rule only to Atom core elements--not extensions.
2) "their namespace-qualified equivalents": Unless the spec defines namespace-qualified attributes for Atom, which it doesn't, namespace-qualified equivalents don't actually exist, right?
3) It combines the two sentences, which I think is more clear.
