On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 18:06:53 +0100, Henry Story <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -1. At least I don't see why there should be limitations at all on
> where extensions can appear.
> I am for a general must ignore rule.
>
> On the other hand I think a much more ambitious extension spec would be
> one Atom were defined by
> something similar to the RELAX NG description we currently have and an
> OWL ontology. This would
> be helpful and very useful. PaceExtendingAtom as it currently is stated
> is restrictive without
> being useful.
How is PaceExtendingAtom restrictive? It only spells out a Must Ignore
policy and nothing else. Am I missing something?
-joe
--
Joe Gregorio http://bitworking.org
