Wednesday, May 25, 2005, 10:04:52 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
> I think the notion of foreign markup exists so that we can write the > extremely-important section 6.3, our MustIgnore assertion. The point > is, either software knows what to do with an extension and does it, > or if not it's not allowed to to break and should pass text through > in contentful contexts. -Tim Basically, I want future versions of Atom to be able to add markup anywhere it likes (including on or inside atom:link), and Atom 1.0 should be designed to ignore such "unknown foreign markup". What I really don't want is "unknown foreign markup" to be used as a poor-man's "Extension Element". Does that match the consensus of the WG? I'm also a bit confused about the terminology in Section 6.3: > It might be the case that the software is able to process the > foreign markup correctly and does so. Otherwise, such markup is > termed "unknown foreign markup". So "unknown foreign markup" is "foreign markup" that software is unable to process? But then 6.3 goes on to explain how to process it. This sounds like a contradiction? Also, in what cases would software be able to process "foreign markup" other than by ignoring it as described in section 6.3 or treating it as a 6.4 extension? So I don't see how the term "foreign markup" and "unknown foreign markup" are any different? Also, if 6.4 extensions are a subset of "unknown[?] foreign markup", then the rule "[software] MUST NOT change its behavior as a result of the markup's presence" doesn't really make sense? Surely extensions can change the behaviour of software. -- Dave
