Robert Sayre wrote:
Sam Ruby wrote:
Robert Sayre wrote:
* 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.
This element only provides any value in commonly deployed browsers if the content type is text/xml or application/xml.
I am opposed to text/xml for a number of reasons.
We should either explicitly allow application/xml in section 2, or remove this element. I'm not sure which I prefer.
I think that's a false dichotomy. Sometimes, the feed is incorporated into other media types (text/xml, application/xml, application/rss+xml, application/rdf+xml ...). The info:element is of use here.
Then I am clearly confused.
At the moment, the feedvalidator would mark an atom feed as invalid if it were served with the text/plan, application/rss+xml, or application/rdf+xml media types. It accepts as valid text/xml (if the feed is either ASCII or a charset is explictly defined), application/xml, or application/atom+xml.
Given this, how should the feedvalidator change (if at all)? How should the spec change (if at all)?
- Sam Ruby
