> What Mark said. Now, that's the world as it might be outside the spec. > There is still proposed spec text
There are also draft-05, draft-06, draft-07, draft-08, and draft-09 feeds in the wild, being produced by people who aren't WG members. There are RSS feeds served as application/atom+xml. All of these things are obviously invalid Atom 1.0, and MUST be considered so, as they do not reside in the correct namespace. Someone who's read the spec is in no danger of mistaking an Atom 0.3 feed for an Atom 1.0, and no software that bothers to check the namespace of the root element will be fooled. I worry that any statement like Bill's suggested text will confer legitimacy on Atom 0.3 as long as the RFC is available. *Every* current implementor is aware of the issue, so the short term benefit of such text is pretty much nil. Long term, the text will actually be harmful. So, -1 to mentioning Atom 0.3 at all. Robert Sayre
