On May 25, 2009, at 8:42 AM, Julian Reschke wrote:
with respect to <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-00#section-3
>, "Inline Representation of Hierarchical Resources"...
It seems to be that using atom:link as a container elements
stretches its semantics of "reference from an entry or feed to a Web
resource" too much.
I don't agree with that. A previous discussion on this mailing list
more than a year ago [1] has already concluded that it is perfectly
legal to do so. Additionally, the hierarchy-ID approach appears
similar to the approach taken by the RFC4287 with atom:content usage
models, where several options about inline and out-of-line content
delivery are available.
As Al pointed out on the CMIS mailing list (<http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/cmis/200905/msg00186.html
>), it may be better to use a container element inside atom:entry.
So, the example in <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-00#section-3.2.3
>:
<atom:entry>
<atom:link rel="down"
href="/finance/feeds/default/portfolios/1/positions">
<atom:feed>
<atom:link rel="self"
href="/finance/feeds/default/portfolios/1/positions"/>
...
</atom:feed>
</atom:link>
...
</atom:entry>
would become
<atom:entry>
<atom:link rel="down"
href="/finance/feeds/default/portfolios/1/positions" />
<ah:children>
<atom:feed>
<atom:link rel="self"
href="/finance/feeds/default/portfolios/1/positions"/>
...
</atom:feed>
</ah:children>
...
</atom:entry>
BR, Julian
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
[1] http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg20464.html
