Anne van Kesteren wrote:
So I can not include MathML in the TITLE of my weblog? I do not see why this restriction is necessary.
Nope. Can any aggregator display it? I wonder if Shrook users are filling Graham's inbox with requests for MathML in their titles.
In Europe there are lots of different languages. It does not make sense to provide a feed based on language negotiation since feed
aggregators do not support that.
There are lots of different languages in America, too!
Either Atom should provide support for multiple languages or we should address something like feed language negotiation in the specification.
If what you say is true, then aggregators don't support multiple alternatives at all right now. Content Negotiation is covered by RFC2616.
I think "version" should be dropped. We can always add it later.
True. But that does not help current aggregators. At least, they will not reject new feeds. They will just found out they can not parse them at some point.
The namespace will change.
* 4.2.2 "atom:link" Element
It does not make sense to only allow a single "alternate" link construct if the TYPE attribute has the same value. What if I have translations of the document in question? For example:
I agree. I think we should allow one or more.
Does this change require or pace or is this enough?
I don't know.
* 5.4 "atom:edit" Element
Why does the specification not define that this MUST be a URI and how this URI MUST be processed as is done in for example 3.5.3?
It does. See "Service Construct".
Can this be referenced from within the specification? As in "See section ..."
Sure.
Robert Sayre
