* Danny Ayers wrote: >> This does not make much sense to me, it is either not possible to write >> a test case for the first requirement in which case this would be an im- >> plementation detail which is out of scope of the specification, or it is >> possible to write such a test case in which case this would render Atom >> inconsistent with a broad range of XML technologies, e.g., for >> >> <atom:foo bar="baz" /> > >Sorry, swap in the word 'consumer'. Straight XML applications will see >that exactly as written, languages that require disambiguation of >'bar' will read it as 'atom:bar' > >A test case would be an RDF processor seeing the triples: > >_:fooinstance rdf:type atom:foo . >_:fooinstance atom:bar "baz" . > >(assuming atom:foo was a class)
If this implementation detail is exposed to the user, it would seem reasonable to consider such a software a Atom-to-something-else con- verter; you would thus seem to propose the introduction of conformance requirements for Atom conversion programs into the specification. No? -- Bj�rn H�hrmann � mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] � http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 � Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 � http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim � PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 � http://www.websitedev.de/
