Sam, had I defined this extension today, I likely would have strongly considered putting it into the Atom namespace. As it is, however, there is already deployed code that is using the extension in the namespace defined and it doesn't make sense to break that now.
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:15 AM, Sam Johnston <[email protected]> wrote: > James, > > Can this be simplified and done in the atom namespace or does it warrant its > own? > > Sam > > On 19 May 2010 01:09, "James Snell" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ok, so I've resurrected the Atom Tombstones draft... there are places >> where this is has already been implemented and it's time to go ahead >> and finish it up. I have made a number of backwards compatible >> changes, such as allowing for any number of atom:link elements. I also >> intend to allow a at:deleted-entry element to contain an atom:source >> element to allow the deleted-entry to be copied from feed to feed. I >> want to wrap this up completely so I want to send out one last call >> for comments before I publish what I hope is the final draft before >> taking that next step towards and RFC. >> >> -- >> - James Snell >> http://www.snellspace.com >> [email protected] >> > -- - James Snell http://www.snellspace.com [email protected]
