On 27/05/2009, at 10:12 PM, Julian Reschke wrote:
I do not agree with that conclusion, but nevertheless, just because something is syntactically legal doesn't make it a good choice.
+1 - the clearest way to communicate what's going on here is to use a new child element.
Assuming that the contents of the link element are inlined content are adding an extension without explicitly identifying it; this may conflict with future uses. There isn't a way for an Atom processor to inspect a link element and know that the content is inlined; they have to guess that this specification is in effect, therefore the link content is the inlined content. This isn't good practice.
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
