definition of "XRD Document"

[Will Norris <will@willnorris.com>]

Scott, just to clarify the changes you recently sent me regarding conformance... You added the following to the intro text of Section 2:

> An XRD document MUST be a well-formed XML document as defined by [XML 1.0] with a root element of <XRD>, MUST validate against the normative XRD schema identified in Section 1.4, “Schema Organization and Namespaces”, and MUST adhere to the additional syntactic constraints defined by Section 1.5, “Common Data Types” and this section.

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.

Looking at the media type registration in Appendix C, I don't see any reason why an "XRD Document" and an "XRDS Document" couldn't both use the "application/xrd+xml" media type.  It simply references the XRD 1.0 spec, but not any particular section of it.

Are there any implications I'm overlooking about constraining the definition of "XRD Document" to only allow for the root element of <XRD>?  Are we all okay with this?  

(Or am I over thinking this entirely, which wouldn't surprise me)

-will