Bill de hÓra wrote:
Norman Walsh wrote:
Someone sent me this, noting that it was not valid according to the grammar I posted. He thought it was legal according to the spec, and I'm not sure. What say you?
My first thought is that unless there a use-case for multiple content blocks, you've found a bug in the spec.
http://www.atompub.org/2005/01/10/draft-ietf-atompub-format-04.html#rfc.section.5.12
"atom:entry elements MUST contain zero or one atom:content elements."
PaceReformedContent3 made multiple content elements invalid. I wonder why that example couldn't use an xhtml summary element.
Robert Sayre
