On 16/1/06 1:07 PM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I personally assumed that the </foo:Person> was an unintended error..
> after accounting for such, the example is valid.
Yes, that was a typo.
But I'm not so sure it's valid now, because of the SHOULD clause below:
per rfc4287 section 4.1.3.3
4. If the value of "type" is an XML media type [RFC3023] or ends
with "+xml" or "/xml" (case insensitive), the content of
atom:content MAY include child elements and SHOULD be suitable
for handling as the indicated media type. If the "src" attribute
is not provided, this would normally mean that the "atom:content"
element would contain a single child element that would serve as
the root element of the XML document of the indicated type.
Assume foo xml requires foo:basket as the root element. Is it valid to have
atom:content with foo:thing as the immediate child?
For example, an OPML document requires <opml> as the root, which contains
<head> and <body>, the latter containing <outline> elements ... so can an
atom entry contain just an <opml:outline> element?
<entry>
...
<entry type="whatever OPML's type is">
<opml:outline xmlns:opml="whatever.." ... />
</entry>
</entry>
Thus, can atom be used to ship around parcels of xml snippets? I suppose it
could, but only so long as both ends knew what was going on, and knew naïve
atom processors might barf on the incomplete xml, right?
e.
