* Asbjørn Ulsberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-05-24 14:50]: > I've mentioned this several times before and haven't had time > to follow the evolvement of the draft up until now, but as far > as I can tell, atom:uri is still in place in the > specification... Do we really need a pace to have that element > renamed before the spec goes final?
-1 to renaming the element. See http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13864.html > Or is it so that the atom:uri element have many proponents on > the list so it can't be renamed or changed to atom:link, > atom:email or something making more sense? Even atom:iri is > better at this point, imho. Is there anything for which atom:uri is insufficient, which can plausibly not be done in an extension, and for which there is a pressing need? And if so, how do atom:link semantics apply to person constructs? -1 to atom:link. No need for change for the sake of change. Regards, -- Aristotle
