On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 8:28 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. >
This strikes me as a sound reasoning against using atom:link content for embedded feeds. Since the idea was partly an attempt to standardize a common use (Google's feedLink), I'm wondering why not simply use Google's extension (Google folks have stated many times they'd be happy to see their protocol extensions used). Certainly, Yahoo's media extensions have caught on widely. --peter keane > > > > > -- > Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/ > >
