David Powell wrote:
- in 6.4; extension schema allow the use of the atom namespace as child
elements of the extension. I do not recall this being discussed, but
personally am +1 to it.
Yeah, I'm ok with it too. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do it,
but the spirit of Structured Extension
Bill de hra wrote:
...
** ABNF
Drop.
...
reason: ABNF is used in one place:
4.2.9.2 The rel Attribute, p1
and referred to in 3.3. It's incidental enough to be dropped.
I agree with this one now. The other specs use the older ABNF spec anyway.
** Figures
Please add figure captions for all samples,
Robert Sayre wrote:
Bill de hra wrote:
...
** ABNF
Drop.
...
reason: ABNF is used in one place:
4.2.9.2 The rel Attribute, p1
and referred to in 3.3. It's incidental enough to be dropped.
I agree with this one now. The other specs use the older ABNF spec anyway.
** Figures
Please add figure
Note: the following example is not well formed unless the XHTML
namespace has been bound previously to the xh prefix in the
document:
tangent: perhaps we could also insert a note along the lines of ...
Note: @type=XHTML does not automatically imbue the contents of
the atom:content
Robert Sayre wrote:
Bill de hra wrote:
- I believe atomfeed and
...?
I was going to say something about schematron - don't mind it. The spec
will be clearer for leaving the schematron in.
cheers
Bill
Sam Ruby wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:09 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
summary/?
No. --Tim
summarySome text./summary
I've incorporated Sam's suggested wording.
Robert Sayre
- in 6.4; extension schema allow the use of the atom namespace as child
elements of the extension. I do not recall this being discussed, but
personally am +1 to it.
Yeah, I'm ok with it too. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do it,
but the spirit of Structured Extension elements was that
Hi editors,
Comments and observations on the 07 draft.
** RNC Schema
- is valid rnc
- the schema and the fragments appear to be consistent.
- both examples validate according to the supplied schema
- the xhtml fragments in 4.1.3.4 validate when embedded as specified.
- in 6.4; simple and
On Apr 6, 2005, at 6:50 PM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Hi editors,
Comments and observations on the 07 draft.
Most seem OK to me, but...
replace
[[[
The following example assumes that the XHTML namespace has been bound
to the xh prefix earlier in the document:
]]]
with
Note: the following example is
On Wednesday, April 6, 2005, at 07:50 PM, Bill de hÓra wrote:
Note: the following example is not well formed unless the XHTML
namespace has been bound previously to the xh prefix in the
document:
+1 to the concept, but perhaps it could be worded a little differently,
eg. 'Note: the following
An additional observation: neither of the examples in section 1.1
include the summary element. Suggestion: change the content in the
first (minimal) example to summary.
- Sam Ruby
Sam Ruby wrote:
An additional observation: neither of the examples in section 1.1
include the summary element. Suggestion: change the content in the
first (minimal) example to summary.
summary/?
Robert Sayre
On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:09 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
An additional observation: neither of the examples in section 1.1
include the summary element. Suggestion: change the content in the
first (minimal) example to summary.
summary/?
No. --Tim
13 matches
Mail list logo
