> Also note, that atom:uri is an IRI-reference, so it is affected by any xml:base attributes on that element. <
Until now, I had no idea this was the case... WOW!!! Amazing the things you can learn around people who know what theyre talking about. :) On 3/15/06, David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Wednesday, March 15, 2006, 3:21:08 AM, Martin Duerst wrote: > > > For atom:uri and atom:email at least, not having xml:lang may > > be seen as a feature. > > The spec says that "Any element defined by this specification MAY have > an xml:lang attribute". We chose to limit the effects of xml:lang, > rather than the occurrence of it. Eg: atom:published is allowed > xml:lang, even though it is meaningless. The spec includes a sentence > about element xxx being "Language-Sensitive" when we consider the > language to be relevant. The idea is, if a feed reading framework such > as Microsoft's Windows/IE7 feed platform doesn't preserve xml:lang on > elements that aren't "Language-Sensitive", then they are doing nothing > wrong. Same for, eg: an Atom publishing server backed by a legacy CMS. > > > While these often contain pieces from one language or another, they > > are not really in a language. > > I agree. Note that this is the case in Atom, because those two > elements are not "Language-Sensitive". > > > Also note, that atom:uri is an IRI-reference, so it is affected by any > xml:base attributes on that element. > > And that atomCommonAttributes also covers extension attributes, which > are also allowed anywhere. They are "undefined", which *I* think means > that implementations need not feel bad about dropping them on the > floor. The official meaning is, er, undefined. > > > -- > Dave > > -- <M:D/> M. David Peterson http://www.xsltblog.com/
