On Jan 6, 2010, at 20:47 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >> The ignore-unknowns strategy is largely built in order to support >> extensibility: because you ignore stuff you don't understand, it's possible >> for a v1 processor to process a v27 document (assuming it's designed to be >> compatible, which it should if it's using the same namespace). >> >> In the case of feature names however we already have all the extensibility >> that we ought to need: IRIs are completely open. Consequently I can't think >> of a situation in which an author would produce an invalid feature name on >> purpose, so this is an obvious error. > > So you support leaving the spec as is, right?
Yes indeed. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/