Eric Scheid wrote: > On 1/8/05 5:39 PM, "David Powell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>This specification does not 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 is reserved for future forwards-compatable revisions of >>>Atom. >> >>I'm not sure I like this paragraph. It starts by saying that it places >>no restriction on the elements, then mentions the RelaxNG, then in the >>final sentence, it says that actually there is a restriction after >>all. I don't know - perhaps I'm not reading it right, but it sounds >>contradictory. It would make more sense to me if everything was >>dropped except the last sentence. > > I agree, especially since elsewhere the RelaxNG is noted to be Informative, > not Normative.
This paragraph appears to be expressing two separate thoughts. Perhaps the solution is to separate the thoughts into separate paragraphs. Perhaps the following could be added to section 6.2: The Atom namespace is reserved for future forwards-compatable revisions of Atom. Which would enable the text in appendix B to simply state: The RelaxNG grammar explicitly excludes elements in the Atom namespace which are not defined in this revision of the specification. - Sam Ruby
