- From: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 10:48:39 +0100
- To: Marcos Caceres <marcosc@opera.com>
- Cc: "cyril.concolato" <cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
On Jan 6, 2010, at 20:47 , Marcos Caceres wrote: >> The ignore-unknowns strategy is largely built in order to support extensibility: because you ignore stuff you don't understand, it's possible for a v1 processor to process a v27 document (assuming it's designed to be compatible, which it should if it's using the same namespace). >> >> In the case of feature names however we already have all the extensibility that we ought to need: IRIs are completely open. Consequently I can't think of a situation in which an author would produce an invalid feature name on purpose, so this is an obvious error. > > So you support leaving the spec as is, right? Yes indeed. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 09:49:08 UTC