> Section 6.4:
> The RNGs in this section require Extension Elements to be in a > namespace that isn't the Atom namespace. This requirement is missing > from the text. Just a note: This proposal doesn't rehash the "extensions -- Atom NS and unprefixed attributes" thread [1], because it only applies to "6.4 Extension Elements"; not to "6.2 future extensions to atom" - so the arguments about change control of the specification are irrelevant. Is this just an editorial fix on the basis that it is already in the RNG, and 6.4.1 already implies the presence of a namespace URI; or do I need to campaign for consensus on this? [1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg15035.html -- Dave
