/ David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
| a) Section 6.4 omits atom:source as a valid location for Metadata Extensions,
| but it is allowed by the RelaxNG in 4.2.11. I believe that the RelaxNG
| reflects our intent to allow extensions to be preserved in atom:source.
That seems reason
Friday, June 10, 2005, 1:03:41 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> *All* reworking is not acceptable now.
> [...]
> There is a large difference between suggesting a bunch of reworking
> and pointing out specific ambiguities. Please do the latter if you
> find them.
Yes, I understand. In my previous m
At 12:31 AM +0100 6/10/05, David Powell wrote:
Thursday, June 9, 2005, 5:51:57 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> On the other hand, a general re-organization of section 6 is right
> out; it is our finding that the format-09 draft (modulo errors)
reflects the rough consensus of the WG. If you disagree,
Thursday, June 9, 2005, 5:51:57 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:22 AM, David Powell wrote:
>> Firstly, there are some mismatches between the RelaxNG grammar and the
>> specification text. I know that the RelaxNG grammar isn't
>> normative; but this
>> doesn't mean that it can be c
On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:22 AM, David Powell wrote:
Apologies for the rubbish timing, but I've been reviewing section
6, and found a
number of problems.
Firstly, there are some mismatches between the RelaxNG grammar and the
specification text. I know that the RelaxNG grammar isn't
normative;
Apologies for the rubbish timing, but I've been reviewing section 6, and found a
number of problems.
Firstly, there are some mismatches between the RelaxNG grammar and the
specification text. I know that the RelaxNG grammar isn't normative; but this
doesn't mean that it can be contradictory:
a
