> Would you be satisfied with a paragraph that says that those who extend > Atom may do so by putting in namespaced elements, and that such > elements, when the information they contain is relevant to an entry, > SHOULD appear as a child of atom:entry?
Tim: +1, for the sake of compromise if nothing else. Although y'know, having spent some time watching the podcasting crowd develop, I'm beginning to think such a clarification might even be necessary. I'm seeing folks wanting to shove all kinds of stuff into rss:item that actually has nothing to do with the conceptual item. Atom should probably head that impulse off at the pass. -- Roger Benningfield blog: http://admin.support.journurl.com/
