On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 22:48 +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Uche Ogbuji <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-12-01 17:55]: > > Your suggested change would not be incorrect, but it would add > > no value and be confusing (at least until atom ever decided to > > have "global" attributes, for some reason). > > Confusing, how? Attributes in the Atom namespace are already > forbidden, unless I’m misreading the following: > > 6.2 Extensions To the Atom Vocabulary > > The Atom namespace is reserved for future forwards-compatible > revisions of Atom. Future versions of this specification > could add new elements and attributes to the Atom markup > vocabulary. Software written to conform to this version of > the specification will not be able to process such markup > correctly and, in fact, will not be able to distinguish it > from markup error. For the purposes of this discussion, > unrecognized markup from the Atom vocabulary will be > considered "foreign markup". > > The schema OTOH permits unknown attributes in the Atom namespace > in undefinedAttribute – whereas it explicitly excludes unknown > elements in simpleExtensionElement, anyForeignElement and > friends. > > So if my reading is correct, the (normative) spec disagrees with > the (informal) schema. I’d say that is what’s confusing.
I didn't fully catch your meaning in the original message. I think that was poor reading on reading, not lack of clarity on your part. Anyway, the prose does not read to me as if "atom:bogon" should cause validation failure. It says that it will be 'considered "foreign markup"'. That seems to sensibly fall into the undefinedAttribute bucket. It's basically a forwards compatibility hedge. So I still don't think the RNG should be changed. -- Uche Ogbuji Fourthought, Inc. http://uche.ogbuji.net http://fourthought.com http://copia.ogbuji.net http://4Suite.org Articles: http://uche.ogbuji.net/tech/publications/
