Nikunj R. Mehta wrote:
<snip>
I am glad you are speaking up about this. The original proposal for
in-lining as expressed in draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-01 was rather
modest and supported a rather simple use case.
However, per Mark Nottingham et al [1], the use of the ae:inline is
held up as the right way of extending Atom. Plus, per James Snell
[2], the inline content's media type is better gleaned from
ae:inl...@type attribute. Also, per Al Brown et al. [3] [4] [5], it
was more important to ensure maximum flexibility than demonstrate
specific use cases.
To be clear, what I was suggesting was that if you were going to be
pointing to the atom:content rules as the model for processing
ae:inline then it would better for ae:inline to have its own type
attribute distinct from the atom:link elements type attribute. How
to handle things if there is a mismatch between the atom:link/@type
and the ae:inline/@type (or the atom:link/@type and the actual
content type of the linked resource after performing an HTTP GET) is
a separate issue altogether.
Do you find the current I-D text satisfactory or do you agree it is
more complex than it needs to be?
For the "up" and "down" links yes, I think it's much better. As for
ae:inline, I like that it has been separated out into a separate I-D but
I am still definitely on the fence about whether in-lining is even
something that should be done. I've never liked the idea of making the
Atom syntax hierarchical and I haven't seen anything yet that has
convinced me otherwise.
- James
