On Wednesday, April 6, 2005, at 07:50 PM, Bill de h�ra wrote:
"Note: the following example is not well formed unless the XHTML namespace has been bound previously to the "xh" prefix in the document:"
+1 to the concept, but perhaps it could be worded a little differently, eg. 'Note: the following example is only well formed if the XHTML namespace has been bound to the "xh" prefix earlier in the document.' If we want to be more verbose to be precise, we could add something to the effect that that namespace to prefix binding is in scope at this point in the document. Reasons: 1) the first part of the sentence sounds like it's going to say that we're about to show an invalid example, and 2) "previously" (or "earlier") and "in the document" belong together. Perhaps the editors would have tweaked it, but it doesn't hurt to comment...
"* atom:feed elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:link element with a rel attribute value of "alternate" which have the same type attribute value.
Under atom:entry, we have: 'atom:entry elements MUST NOT contain more than one atom:link element with a rel attribute value of "alternate" that has the same combination of type and hreflang attribute values.' hreflang needs to be added under feed too, right?
4.2.9.2 The "rel" Attribute, p1
and referred to in 3.3. It's incidental enough to be dropped.
Not sure what you're referring to here. Could you quote the text?
