* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-08-01 17:25]: > On 8/1/05, Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Perhaps the following could be added to section 6.2: > > > > The Atom namespace is reserved for future > > forwards-compatable revisions of Atom.
s/compatable/compatible/ > Sounds OK to me, but I recall squawking about this. There wasn’t any squawking about the rule as such, I think. A minor amount of squawking was about what a consumer should do when it encounters Atom-namespaced elements in locations it didn’t expect them. Per spec: it should simply treat them as unknown foreign markup. Intent: this allows old consumers to continue working with future revisions of the spec, so long as changes are not so drastic that a new namespace is warranted to prevent existing consumers from doing anything with new documents. (You probably know this, of course…) I think that specification of behaviour is a wise choice. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
