<specification xmlns='http://berjon.com/ns/re-spec/'
               xmlns:rs='http://berjon.com/ns/re-spec/'
               version='1.0'
               xml:lang='en'>
  <metadata>
    <title>Foo Spec</title>
    <styling type='W3C' status='EDMO'/>
    <date year='1977' month='03' day='15'/>
    <editors>
      <person>
        <name>Robin Berjon</name>
        <email>rberjon@cpan.org</email>
        <url>http://berjon.com/</url>
        <company>CPAN</company>
        <company-url>http://cpan.org/</company-url>
      </person>
    </editors>
    <versions>
      <current>http://www.w3.org/2017/03/ED-foo-20170315</current>
      <latest>http://www.w3.org/TR/foo</latest>
      <previous>http://www.w3.org/TR/1977/03/ED-foo-19770315</previous>
    </versions>
  </metadata>
    

  <section xml:id='abstract' type='w3c-abstract'>
    <title>Abstract</title>

    <p>
      This specification defines nothing at all, and certainly no acronym that
 			would make <acronym title='Frobnicate Other Objects'>FOO</acronym>
			[FOO] mean anything. It's just here for testing purposes. Which is
			why it MUST contain nonsense, as all SHOULD NOT, a behaviour we sometimes
			RECOMMEND. Which is why we say BAR.
    </p>
		<p>
			And here we say FOO again, and 
			<abbr title='Berjonist Alliance for Revolution'>BAR</abbr>.
		</p>
		<schema>
			<title>EBNF for target paths</title>
			<ebnf>
 			  FooBNF ::= Bar | 'a'
 			  Bar    ::= 'b'
 			</ebnf>
		</schema>
    <schema>
      <title>Element foo</title>
			<include href='foo.rng#foo'/>
    </schema>
  </section>

	<include href='foo-inc.xml'/>

  <section xml:id='bibref' type='appendix'>
    <title>References</title>

    <bibliography>
      <bibentry xml:id='FOO'>
        <title>Random gobbledegook</title>
        <link>http://berjon.com/gobbledegook</link>
        <date>1997-01</date>
        <authors>
          <person>
            <name>Eris</name>
          </person>
        </authors>
      </bibentry>
	  </bibliography>
	</section>
</specification>

