On Jan 15, 2010, at 3:28 PM, Scott Cantor wrote:
> 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.
Ah, right... you do actually call them "XRD Sequence documents". That works.
