Will Norris wrote on 2010-01-15:
> This makes it much cleaner to to make <XRDS> support optional in the
> conformance sections. However, it also means that a document with a root
> element of <XRDS> cannot be called an "XRD Document". It would have to be
> called something else like an "XRDS Document", although that term is not
> actually defined or used in the spec (which is probably okay). I don't
feel
> like we reached consensus on the call yesterday, and I'd like to make sure
> we're all okay with this.
I intended to use a different name for XRDS, and for conformance purposes I
left it as XRD Sequence document, I think? Maybe just XRD Sequence? I can't
recall what I sent you. Either way, I figured using a different name was
cleaner.
-- Scott
