Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 1:30:54 AM, Robert Sayre wrote:
> On 8/9/05, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Publishers should expect that relative refs used in atom:link will >> work, but publishers should expect that relative refs used in Simple >> Extensions will break. > Disagree. We have no idea what people will do with this, or where they > will be deployed. You're suggesting adding implementation advice, > since the content of a simple extension element is not defined as a > URI reference. I want to know whether an implementation is corrupting data if it discards the base-uri of simple extensions. I think that it is the job of the spec to tell me this, not the the job of "implementation advice" to decide this. > By your logic, we have to explicitly clarify that > atom:updated is not subject to xml:base processing. Sorry, I strongly > disagree. Are you saying that we don't need clarification because it is obvious that simple extensions only contain strings that aren't subject to base processing? I think that it is pretty clear, but as Tim disagrees, I think that this is a good indication that we need clarification. -- Dave
