Head elements in the entry have been discussed on the list and are described here: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/PaceHeadInEntry. AFAIK, The proposal has been accepted and is slated for incorporation into the draft.
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:51:43 -0700, Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Peter Saint-Andre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > In article > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > "Bob Wyman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I would strongly recommend that it be required that an atom:entry that is > > > published with no enclosing atom:feed MUST contain an atom:head element. > > > If > > > this is not the case, the published atom:entries will be essentially > > > anonymous and thus largely useless. Virtually every Atom processor in > > > existence requires elements of atom:head when handling entries. I can > > > imagine very few applications (other than closed ones) that could make use > > > of atom:entries that do not contain atom:head elements and are not > > > themselves enclosed in atom:feeds. > > > > That makes sense. I probably won't publish another version of the > > Atom-over-XMPP draft until Atom becomes more stable, but I'll at least > > add this to my working copy of the I-D. > > Forgive my ignorance, but I don't see any examples of atom:head within > atom:entry, and the spec does not contain a schema. Is head allowed > within entry? > > Peter > > -- - James Snell http://www.snellspace.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
