On 5/4/06, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On May 4, 2006, at 3:43 PM, Thomas Broyer wrote: > > > Things would have been far easier if either a) atom:link were > > extensible > > This assertion that atom:link is not extensible is simply, flatly, > completely, wrong. I just went and reviewed 4287 and I think it is > perfectly clear on this. I suggest that interested parties review > sections 4.2.7, 6.3, and 6.4 and, if they still think there is any > problem with child elements of <atom:link>, find language in the RFC > which says something other than what those sections say. -Tim
I'll admit that I was unclear on this point: the motivation behind sometimes using 'extensionElement' and other times 'undefinedContext' in the Relax-NG schemas for various 4287 elements is a point of confusion. But as Tim says, literally speaking I don't think either one precludes elements in a foreign namespace. -- Kyle
