+1
Joe Gregorio wrote:
>
> On 6/6/06, Michael Wechner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I guess one could consider the introspection document as
>> a published API. From the most recent draft (0.8) it is not clear to me
>> if an introspection document has a version (7.1 Example) or how else
>> will backwards/forwards compatibility handled in the case of the
>> introspection?
>
> Do we need verbage like that of Section 6.2 in the Format spec?
>
> "" The Atom namespace is reserved for future forward-compatible
> revisions of Atom. Future versions of this specification could add
> new elements and attributes to the Atom markup vocabulary. 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. For the purposes of this
> discussion, unrecognized markup from the Atom vocabulary will be
> considered "foreign markup".
> ""
>
> -joe
>
