On 17/12/06 2:20 AM, "Tim Bray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I guess I'm assuming that one would want clients to be able to >> extend Atom unilaterally. > > That doesn't seem to have been a design goal for the WG. To the > extent that the issue never came up in the discussion. Not sure exactly, but I did raise the possibility of a client passing in XML whose only purpose is for the benefit of other clients. Things like editorial comments and such. These would have been shepherded in the app:control element, and there was a great deal of discussion about the contents of app:control not being "published" (whatever that meant). It got hairy, and there wasn't much support for the idea. e.
