On 18/1/08 3:20 AM, "James M Snell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of the criticisms of that work was that while rfc4287 allowed the > atom:link element to have child elements, it was not clear how many > implementations would actually be able to do anything with them. Another > issue was whether implementations that could get to the extensions > actually would do anything with them. that is pretty much par for the course for *any* extension though, right? e.
