On Jun 9, 2005, at 9:22 AM, David Powell wrote:
Apologies for the rubbish timing, but I've been reviewing section
6, and found a
number of problems.
Firstly, there are some mismatches between the RelaxNG grammar and the
specification text. I know that the RelaxNG grammar isn't
normative; but this
doesn't mean that it can be contradictory:
I've asked Paul, and in fact we can fix typos and outright bugs later
on in the process. If you're right about the Relax mismatch (Rob?
Norm?) then let's fix that.
On the other hand, a general re-organization of section 6 is right
out; it is our finding that the format-09 draft (modulo errors)
reflects the rough consensus of the WG. If you disagree, the IETF
provides appeal procedures.
a) Section 6.4 omits atom:source as a valid location for Metadata
Extensions,
but it is allowed by the RelaxNG in 4.2.11. I believe that the
RelaxNG
reflects our intent to allow extensions to be preserved in
atom:source.
Sounds right to me.
b) Section 6.4.1 and Section 6.4.2 don't place any restrictions on
what elements
may be used as Metadata Extensions, but the RelaxNG grammar
explicitly excludes
elements in the Atom namespace. The Atom namespace should be
reserved for
future forwards-compatable revisions of Atom.
I find this surprising too, will check further. -Tim
