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
FYI: http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11433.html "But if I encounter a <link> element that's weirdly non-empty and contains markup from some other namespace, that's the kind of situation you're talking about. I think it would be OK to leave behavior undefined as you say." Robert Sayre
