On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:52:52 -0700, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Yep, I reckon that's an improvement. One thing I'm not sure about - where it currently says "Atom processors", perhaps that would be better as merely "Atom consumers". For the reasons Sam gave, we don't really want extra variability in what's being produced, but this still would still allow RDF-like consumers to interpret the feed as an RDF-like language. Does that make sense, or is there a case I'm missing here? Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
