Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
...
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.
Our proposal is /the/ future use, so I don't see how it can conflict
with future uses. It is our intention to promote an extension of Atom.
By submitting the I-D to the IETF and by bringing this discussion to
atom-syntax, we have made the intention quite clear, don't you agree?
...
I think the point is that this is not an extension point for general
use; thus if it is to be used it would need to be done by a spec that's
on the standards track, and updates RFC4287. For that you'll likely need
a WG to reach the consensus that *this* is the way to go.
It is a different story if Atom cannot be extended as we wish. May be it
would be useful if you or others who claim that our approach is wrong
can explain what is the process for extending Atom. Is it creating a
brand new working group?
The Atom format has extension points that allow distributed
extensibility, but the content of atom:link isn't one of them, as far as
I can tell.
...
BR, Julian
