On 5/24/05, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 24 May 2005, at 5:44 pm, Robert Sayre wrote: > > > FYI: > > http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11433.html > > > > "But if I encounter a <link> element that's weirdly non-empty and > > contains markup from some other namespace, that's the kind of > > situation you're talking about. I think it would be OK to leave > > behavior undefined as you say." > > I'm not sure I object to it in principle, though I think it's a weird > place for someone to put extentsions, but I object to it being > characterised as an editorial change.
Well, that's how the reviewer felt, and I though it was a super minor change. Also, I observe that more than 3 or 4 WG members have expressed a desire to extend it that way. I can't think of a problem with that, though I would surely ignore them when processing a link element. > I also think removing that piece of text makes it unclear that the > element is normally empty. I don't think so. There's an example just below, in 4.2.9.2. We could show some more examples. The other element with no defined content is atom:category. Its RNC illustration also shows it as empty, but the text doesn't call it an "empty element." Robert Sayre
