On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 09:08:34 -0700, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
While I agree with this sentiment, the working group has rejected attempts to add language to the spec to limit the use of <link>, so I assume we do not have consensus on the desire to limit it's usage. So that's not necessarily a very strong argument for creating new elements (not that there aren't other arguments for it).
But using atom:link for images requires us also to add several new attribtues to it, which tells me that we are overloading atom:link to such an extent that we should look for another element. Let people link all they want to images, but if they want their images to actually appear in blog software, they need to use the appropriate element (which shouldn't be atom:link).
Of the two options you listed, I'd prefer @src to @href...for reasons related to my agreement with the sentiment about the use of <link> here. "src" is much more description of how the attribute's value is going to be used.
I agree with this, but still feel atom:link is a wrong element to stuff this into. atom:object or atom:embed would be much better, imo. Or maybe even xhtml:object.
Also, why limit this to feed/head, and not entry? So that Atom feeds will be easily convertible to RSS 2.0? Certainly there are ways to add images to entries in RSS 2.0, though not icons (as far as I'm aware), but I don't think that's a big deal.
Indeed. Images should be embeddable outside the atom:content, imo. Icons aren't that important, but if we create a general way of embedding graphical objects in Atom feeds (at both atom:feed and atom:entry level), people can use it for icons, images, movies and whatever they'd like.
Heck, if people want a 3 minute move in 32 x 32 pixels as their feed icon, and feed consumer software adds support for this, why should we stand in the way?
Because link/@rel="enclosure|attachment" can be used for images at the entry level? Then why not do the same at the feed level? Because we don't have prior art for needing it at the entry level? True for icons, less true for images, but still probably the strongest argument. But I would still argue for allowing them in entries.
I would argue that we need a general graphical embed-mechanism that should be shared between entries and feeds.
-- Asbjørn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/ «He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away»
