On 5/16/05, Mark Nottingham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does this imply that this (or another IETF) Working Group cannot mint > an Atom extension without putting it into a new namespace, or changing > the version number?
They would have to bump the version number. That was the idea behind PaceRemoveVersionAttr, AFAIK. Backwords-compatible changes bump the version number, while backwords-incompatible changes need a new namespace. Robert Sayre > If so, I think it's a needless constraint. This WG might come up with a > backwards-compatible extension and want to put it in the Atom namespace > for convenience; that shouldn't necessitate bumping the version number > (which would cause a lot of compatibility problems).
