Re: Low-hanging fruit: compulsory namespaces

[Mark Nottingham <mnot@xxxxxxxx>]

+1.

Do we want to replace this with something along the lines of "children 
of atom:feed and atom:entry must be namespace-qualified?"


On Jul 13, 2004, at 2:56 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> I suggest that we have good enough consensus to remove the paragraph 
> in draft-format-00 in section 2. beginning "All elements and 
> attributes in an Atom document MUST be namespace-qualified".  Because 
> lots of attributes aren't, and when it was pointed out that this would 
> forbid encapsulating RSS 2.0 and Docbook, nobody pushed back and said 
> "it's OK to forbid that".  -Tim

--
Mark Nottingham     http://www.mnot.net/