On Monday, August 1, 2005, at 09:55 AM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-01 17:25]:
On 8/1/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps the following could be added to section 6.2:
The Atom namespace is reserved for future
forwards-compatable revisions of Atom.
s/compatable/compatible/
Sounds OK to me, but I recall squawking about this.
There wasn’t any squawking about the rule as such, I think. A
minor amount of squawking was about what a consumer should do
when it encounters Atom-namespaced elements in locations it
didn’t expect them.
Per spec: it should simply treat them as unknown foreign markup.
Intent: this allows old consumers to continue working with future
revisions of the spec, so long as changes are not so drastic that
a new namespace is warranted to prevent existing consumers from
doing anything with new documents.
It sounds to me like we might benefit from adding language specifying
that elements in the Atom namespace can appear as children of elements
from other namespaces, but may not appear as children of elements in
the Atom namespace except as specified by the spec (or from wording the
language to be added so that it says that).
...I am correct about our intent to allow Atom elements to be used as
children of extension elements, right? For example, that one be able
to do this:
<foo:bar qwerty="asdf">
<atom:title>My title</atom:title>
<atom:link rel="foo:my-rel" href="..." />
</foo:bar>
...rather than having to do this:
<foo:bar qwerty="asdf">
<foo:title>My title</foo:title>
<foo:link rel="foo:my-rel" href="..." />
</foo:bar>
...right?
