On May 17, 2005, at 01:35, Robert Sayre wrote:
Markup from other vocabularies (foreign markup) can be used in an
Atom document,
but MUST be namespace-qualified and in a namespace other than Atom's.
Surely attributes on extension elements don't need to be ns-qualified?
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL
On 17 May 2005, at 2:45 pm, Henri Sivonen wrote:
Markup from other vocabularies (foreign markup) can be used in
an Atom document,
but MUST be namespace-qualified and in a namespace other than Atom's.
Surely attributes on extension elements don't need to be ns-qualified?
Yes, although extension
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceOtherVocabularies
== Abstract ==
Ban non-IETF use of the Atom namespace.
== Status ==
Open
== Rationale ==
Keep extensions in other namespaces, so the Atom namespace can be
safely extended by the IETF.
== Proposal ==
=== 6.1 Extensions From Non
Robert Sayre wrote:
Software written to conform
to this version of the specification will not be able to process such
markup correctly and, in fact, will not be able to distinguish it from
markup error.
Please replace that sentence with something reemphasizing the MustIgnore
rule.
Stating that
On 5/16/05, Sam Ruby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
Software written to conform
to this version of the specification will not be able to process such
markup correctly and, in fact, will not be able to distinguish it from
markup error.
Please replace that sentence with
namespace
for convenience; that shouldn't necessitate bumping the version number
(which would cause a lot of compatibility problems).
Cheers,
On May 16, 2005, at 3:35 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceOtherVocabularies
== Abstract ==
Ban non-IETF use of the Atom
On 5/16/05, Mark Nottingham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does this imply that this (or another IETF) Working Group cannot mint
an Atom extension without putting it into a new namespace, or changing
the version number?
They would have to bump the version number. That was the idea behind
