> On 5/16/05, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Don't you think the Feed Validator should flag my example as invalid? > No. I actually thought that what we meant was what the spec said, and > that this was the (very reasonable) outcome of our discussion on > MustUnderstand.
I don't think we are talking about the same issue. > That means that if the IETF wants to extend Atom, we > can do it as long as the extensions can be safely ignored. The problem is that anyone can extend the Atom namespace. > If you want > to put something new in that can't be safely ignored, the whole > document namespace has to be changed. Right. I'm not looking to change that. > I thought that the WG had > converged on a reasonable and in fact enlightened position and I really > would prefer not to go back and repeat the discussion. I am not looking for a repeat of that discussion. Atom 1.0 Processors cannot distinguish between markup added later on by the IETF and markup added by a third party, so the processing rules must remain as they are. That doesn't mean we should allow anyone and everyone to add elements and attributes to the Atom namespace. Robert Sayre
