On 28/1/05 4:03 AM, "Norman Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Someone sent me this, noting that it was not valid according to the
> grammar I posted. He thought it was legal according to the spec,
> and I'm not sure. What say you?
not legal.
5.12�"atom:content" Element
The "atom:content" element either contains or links to the
content of the entry. atom:entry elements MUST contain zero
or one atom:content elements.
... although I can't remember why we went zero or one. Maybe as a result of
getting rid of the multipart/ madness. I like the idea of multiple <content>
elements as alternates (particularly with xml:lang or different @type)
e.
