On 5/24/05, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 24 May 2005, at 4:07 pm, Robert Sayre wrote: > > > 4.2.9 (editorial): The atom:link element is explicitly described as > > empty, which violates the rules in 6 for foreign element extension. > > Remove "is an empty element that". > > That's not an editorial change, that's newly allowing extension
Fully disagree. The extensibility sectin is quite clear. > elements in a place most people (such as Paul and myself) assumed > they weren't. I don't know anything about "most people" and neither do you. Paul stated the meaning of the text of in question, no his own thoughts on the matter. Why don't you work on the problems in the draft instead of dwelling on this tiny nitpick? Robert Sayre
