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 el
At 4:37 PM -0400 4/10/05, Robert Sayre wrote:
** Figures
Please add figure captions for all samples, bnf and rnc fragments.
If you require someone to do this, I will do it.
I'm having trouble seeing the benefit here. They might work well in
the HTML version, but I don't think they do in the text
Robert Sayre wrote:
Bill de hÓra 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 ca
Bill de hÓra 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 sample
> - 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 th
Tim Bray wrote:
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".
""?
No. --Tim
Perhaps it would help if I wa
Sam Ruby wrote:
Tim Bray wrote:
On Apr 6, 2005, at 8:09 PM, Robert Sayre wrote:
""?
No. --Tim
Some text.
I've incorporated Sam's suggested wording.
Robert Sayre
Robert Sayre wrote:
Bill de hÓra 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
>> "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 at
Bill de hÓra wrote:
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;
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".
""?
No. --Tim
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".
""?
Robert Sayre
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
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 followi
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
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 extension
16 matches
Mail list logo
