Graham wrote:
On 24 May 2005, at 5:44 pm, Robert Sayre wrote:
FYI:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg11433.html
"But if I encounter a <link> element that's weirdly non-empty and
contains markup from some other namespace, that's the kind of
situation you're talking about. I think it would be OK to leave
behavior undefined as you say."
I'm not sure I object to it in principle, though I think it's a weird
place for someone to put extentsions,
What about the following extension?
<atom:link href="http://example.com/some/negociated/content";>
<ext:media-type>image/svg+xml</ext:media-type>
<ext:media-type q="0.5">image/png</ext:media-type>
<ext:media-type q="0.2">image/jpeg</ext:media-type>
</atom:link>
I also think removing that piece of text makes it unclear that the
element is normally empty.
What about:
The "atom:link" element defines a reference from an entry or feed to
a Web resource. Atom doesn't define any child to the "atom:link",
though it might contain extension markup.
--
Thomas Broyer
