I think I've covered the reasons why I think atom:entry is inappropriate well enough that there's no reason to go back into it. If you haven't yet had the time to go back through the thread (which would be understandable since it's a pretty long thread), I would encourage you to go back and read the points I've made thus far.
- James Bill de hOra wrote: > [snip] > > It's still cruft. > > Apologies tho'; I know I came to this thread late, but I'm not seeing > the reason to introduce a new type (aka 'tombstone'), insofar as adding > a new type is a big deal. > > cheers > Bill > >
