* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-18 17:40]: > My interpretation of the text and the RELAX NG definition is > that while the specification does not assign any meaning to > extensions of the link element, it is nonetheless explicitly > allowed.
Noone ever debated that. > It may have been a mistake, but the discussion of section 6.4 > is explicitly scoped *only* to child elements of atom:entry, > atom:feed, atom:source and Person constructs. That was a mistake, yes. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20. > Note that this section does NOT state that ONLY those elements > may be extended; rather, the section defines the > characteristics of two types of extensions that could occur on > those subsets of elements. The characteristics of extensions on > other elements in the Atom vocabulary are left undefined. Yes. That means extending other elements is a free-for-all just as it is in RSS 2.0, and we know the problems that this poses in practice. Extending Atom in ways other than those defined in Sec 6.4. has the same problems as extending RSS 2.0 with namespaced elements. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
