Re: Namespace and Specification Clarity
- If 3.3 says...
>For all elements that encloseand it says
>character data, the text must be interpreted as plain text with the
>exception of an item's description element, which must be suitable
>for presentation as HTML. All of these elements must not contain
> None of the restrictions described in this document apply tootherwhere, then I MIGHT jump to the conclusion that it is allowed
> elements defined in a namespace.
to have namespaced extensions within the base RSS elements that
enclose character data. Which is not the intent, if you try to read
between the lines.
Just a thought,
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "rcade" <rcade@...> wrote:
> Allowing for RSS elements defined in a namespace causes some
> of the draft specification to be less clear than they would be
> otherwise, because they have to explicitly qualify the fact that
> don't apply to namespaced elements.
> For example, the Character Data section begins "For all elements
> defined in this specification that enclose character data" instead
> "All elements that enclose character data".
> The spec could include a sentence in the Introduction that places
> namespaced elements outside the rules delineated in the spec:
> "None of the restrictions described in this document apply to
> defined in a namespace."
> Can anyone foresee an unintended consequence of this addition? I'd
> love to chop out the qualifiers that only apply to namespaces in
> remainder of the spec.