A. Pagaltzis wrote:
Hi James,
* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-10-02 08:05]:
1. Introduction
The Atom Common Extensions Namespace is a single XML
Namespace with which standardized Atom 1.0 extensions MAY be
associated.
This “MAY” seems really out of place here. Not everything is a
nail with respect to the RFC2119 hammer. Informal language seems
called for, instead.
Agreed. I'll change it.
3. The Atom Common Extensions Namespace
XML elements and attributes defined as Atom 1.0 Extensions
that are standardized in accordance to the process specified
in "Section 4: Registry of Atom Common Extensions" MAY use
the Atom Common Extensions Namespace as an alternative to
defining their own extension specific XML namespaces.
Again, it seems inappropriate to invoke RFC2119 in this instance.
Agreed.
The Atom Common Extensions Namespace
"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom/ace";
Can anyone stick things in the W3C URI space willy-nilly?
I haven't a clue how these things typically get assigned. To me, it
just makes sense for this to extend the existing Atom namespace.
In any case, my preference would be something like “/ext”, due to
both a strong dislike of cutesy names and the fact that the “a”
in “ace” redundantly expands to Atom which is already there.
Hey, I stink at names. I'll make no appologies for that ;-)
4. Registry of Atom Common Extensions
Extension elements and attributes introduced by new
assignments to the registry MUST be uniquely named within
the Atom Common Extensions Namespace and MUST NOT duplicate
the function and purpose of other elements and attributes
specified by other extensions in the registry.
Might it be prudent to require of extensions that they define a
prefix for all their elements?
If you're talking about namespace prefixes, I don't believe so as I
don't think it would be something you could reasonably enforce.
- James
