On 16 May 2005, at 5:59 pm, Tim Bray wrote:
i)
Don't you think the Feed Validator should flag my example as invalid?No.
ii)
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. That means that if the IETF wants to extend Atom, we can do it as long as the extensions can be safely ignored. If you want to put something new in that can't be safely ignored, the whole document namespace has to be changed. 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. -Tim
Extensions being safely ignored is not the same thing as random crap in the Atom namespace. Robert's example was bogus in this regard, since there's no such thing as an "evil extension". On the other hand, I can't see any reason to allow third parties to create extensions in the atom namespace, other than to create problems for ourself when it come to v1.1.
Graham
