Indeed, which is why I didn't think there was much merit in the argument
back them either ;-)
- James
Eric Scheid wrote:
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.
