On Jun 2, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Mark Nottingham 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.
Just FYI, Joe Gregorio and by implication Google supports directly
embedding atom:content inside atom:link. See the last comment on [1].
I don't know what we mean by practice here, but that is exactly what
is going on in lots of places.
Nikunj
http://o-micron.blogspot.com
[1]
http://blogs.msdn.com/astoriateam/archive/2008/02/18/related-entries-and-feeds-links-and-link-expansion.aspx#8573352
