Bill de hOra wrote:
A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I think given the above background you'll agree that the intent
of the document is pretty coherent.
I couldn't tell whether new Atom extensions are foreign markup, or
something else to be dealt with under wrt being a "forward-compatible"
friendly consumer. It's kind of circular. In short, I guessed and you
told me I was wrong.
Bill, please show us a bug? I don't think defining terms until we've got
a good subset of an English dictionary
will make the format more interoperable.
-Rob
