/ Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| David Powell wrote:
|>
|>>- in 6.4; extension schema allow the use of the atom namespace as child
|>>elements of the extension. I do not recall this being discussed, but
|>>personally am +1 to it.
|> Yeah, I'm ok with it too. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do
|> it,
|> but the spirit of Structured Extension elements was that (almost)
|> anything goes.
|
| Sounds right to me. If I'm not mistaken, we'll need to define
| 'anyElement' in the RNC as follows:
|
| anyElement =
| element * {
| (attribute * { text }
| | text
| | anyElement)*
| }
It might be a little trickier than that. If you do that, then by
atomInlineOtherContent =
element atom:content {
atomCommonAttributes,
attribute type { atomMediaType }?,
(text|anyElement)*
}
it'll be valid to write:
<atom:content type="application/html+xml">
<atom:generator>...</atom:generator>
which we probably don't want to allow :-)
The point is that extensions should allow atom:content inside the
extension, is that right?
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Everything should be made as simple as
http://nwalsh.com/ | possible, but no simpler.
pgp6YVPwN6VkQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
