Bill de hOra wrote:
<category term='holidays' label='Holidays'> <link rel='alternate' type='application/atom+xml' href='https://example.org/dehora/categories/holidays' /> </category>Why - it would be nice to supply a feed link for a category, and not do weird things with the scheme/term attributes. And I note that atom:link has the same restriction in the RNC.
From RFC 4287, section 4.2.7: The "atom:link" element defines a reference from an entry or feed to a Web resource. RFC 4287 defines the meaning of an atom:link with respect to an entry or a feed, but not with respect to anything else. Looking at your example above, it's easy enough for a human to guess what you meant by the atom:link...or at least to jump to a conclusion that might be wrong! Speaking a little more generally, perhaps the reason no Atom markup is allowed inside atom:category or atom:link is that the spec doesn't define what such markup would mean. If markup from another namespace is put into either of those places, presumably the writer of the spec for those elements would define what they meant in that place. Antone P.S. It seems like we had some discussion of this issue -- whether atom:link should be allowed to appear in places other than directly inside atom:feed and atom:entry -- specifically, I'd guess is might have been about Person Constructs.
