I'm a little wary of just using a proprietary extension -- no matter
how well-intentioned the authors -- because change control can become
an issue down the road. I think the media extensions are a pretty
relevant example here.
Cheers,
On 03/06/2009, at 1:31 PM, Peter Keane wrote:
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/
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
