On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 08:09:27AM -0700, James M Snell wrote:
> atom:icon is defined as:
>
> atomIcon = element atom:icon {
> atomCommonAttributes,
> (atomUri)
> }
>
> atomCommonAttributes is defined as:
>
> atomCommonAttributes =
> attribute xml:base { atomUri }?,
> attribute xml:lang { atomLanguageTag }?,
> undefinedAttribute*
Hmm, I'd misunderstood what undefinedAttribute meant. Or, more likely,
missed it entirely. Thanks :)
> The Validator should be ignoring any extensions (including attributes)
> it is not familiar with so yes, I would say that it's wrong if its
> returning an error. A warning would be appropriate tho given that not
> all implementations will be capable of making use of extension attributes.
Should the validator have different levels of warning? For instance,
it warns you if you have some iTunes extensions but not others; it
warns you if your RSS uses dates in a strange format that some readers
might not be able to parse; it should warn here. These are all
different: specific application may have problems; general
applications may have problems with a core feature; general
applications may ignore an extension.
(This isn't really the right forum for this, so apologies.)
> One additional point, be sure to clearly define whether or not your
> title attribute value should be interpreted as plain text or escaped
> markup (preferably the former).
Well, it's a private extension, so in practice you're not going to
know if we define it or not :-)
But yeah, point taken and I'll make sure it gets added to our spec
internally.
James
--
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
James Aylett xapian.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] uncertaintydivision.org
