On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Mark Nottingham <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
Agreed -- Yahoo's stewardship of MediaRSS has been a bit rocky. The Google extensions would need to go through a standards process, I'd think. See [1] [2] [1] http://twitter.com/dewitt/status/1781073886 [2] http://twitter.com/dewitt/status/1781081467 --peter > 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/ > >
