On 8/1/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
That's a good rule of thumb. > > Perhaps the following could be added to section 6.2: > > The Atom namespace is reserved for future forwards-compatable > revisions of Atom. Sounds OK to me, but I recall squawking about this. > 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. Sounds good. Robert Sayre
