Mark Nottingham wrote:
My gut feeling is that removing the markup from these elements will make the spec much simpler and easier to implement, without sacrificing many (if any) use cases. If I'm not aware of someone's use case here, I'm sorry and I'd love to hear about it.
It doesn't really matter, and I'd wager everyone has a pet element that they want to use HTML in. (Blogger's titles...)
I'll explain why it's not a problem. In Thunderbird's RSS reader, titles are displayed in the messages pane where the "subject:" header would reside, thus there can be no markup. However, RSS2 items are not required to have titles, so sometimes the description is excerpted. This requires stripping HTML. The code is already there.
In a "newspaper" view in something like bloglines or feeddemon, more html could pass through.
* 4.11 The "atom:host" Element -- I'm surprised to see this in an IETF specification; people are going to make bad assumptions about the content of this, and violate layering to populate it. At the VERY least, I'd expect to see text in Security Considerations about it.
I don't understand your objections here. I understood them when they were in the Person construct, but I don't anymore.
* 4.21 The "atom:info" Element -- If it's not considered meaningful for processors, why does there need to be a standard element for it? At the very least, some sort of information about its semantics should be documented. My preference would be to drop it.
People use this heavily already. One example is FeedBurner feeds that incorporate Atom feeds. They know they can show the info element as an explanation. Without a standard element, they will have to write 90% similar code for every blogging vendor. It should be standardized.
Robert Sayre
