RE: some minor 0.2 corrections

["Jeremy Gray" <jeremy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> >>It's not a problem for attributes to be unqualified, as long as they 
> >>are
> >>only used on qualified elements, which the atom elements are.
> > 
> > 
> > The namespace qualification or lack thereof on attributes has nil to 
> > do with parent element qualification and everything to do with 
> > XML-reserved attribute names and, when those don't apply, the current 
> > default namespace. Should I interpret the above-quoted text as 
> > suggesting otherwise?
> 
> No. Thinking about it, unqualified elements would work just as well. I was
thinking about describing
> unqualified attributes in a schema, but that would also work with
unqualified elements.

Okay, just making sure. :)

I thought I'd check because over the years a number of people have thought
that unqualified attributes are scoped to their parent element's namespace
and I wanted to make sure that wasn't what you thought.

Jeremy