Norman Walsh wrote:
I'm not sure the -06 draft tells a consistent story about extensibility.
It doesn't.
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13845.html
That last paragraph suggests that foreign markup *not* from the Atom vocabulary may not appear at any location, that it must only appear in specified places.
Correct.
But
| 6.4 Extension Elements
| | Atom allows foreign markup anywhere in an Atom document.
Then we're told foreign markup is allowed anywhere. Do we really mean that?
I think we do. Do we really want to *outlaw* the following?
<link href="..." my:ext="foo" />
The text in 4.1.2 seems related to me:
| 4.1.2 The "atom:entry" Element
| | The "atom:entry" element represents an individual entry, acting as a
| container for metadata and data associated with the entry. This
| element can appear as a child of the atom:feed element, or it can
| appear as the document (i.e., top-level) element of a standalone Atom
| Entry Document.
| | The atom:entry element MAY contain any namespace-qualified
| [W3C.REC-xml-names-19990114] elements as children. This
| specification assigns no significance to the order of appearance of
| the child elements of atom:entry.
Saying that atom:entry may contain namespace-qualified elements as children really looks out of place. If we say it here, why don't we say it for atom:feed and other places? I think that sentence should be deleted.
Agree.
Assuming that we *don't* mean for extension elements to appear *anywhere*, then were do we want them?
I think we want them:
1. In atom:feed metadata 2. In atom:entry metadata 3. In PersonConstructs
I think we want to define their role in those locations.
Robert Sayre
