On Wed, 25 May 2005 06:45:29 +0200, Eric Scheid
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In this instance, I think atom:name, atom:resource, or atom:link works
better.
+1 atom:link
I think atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED] works even better. Thinking of what information
is stored in atom:uri and how it is used, why isn't it just an attribute?
It's a single value intended for computers, not humans, to parse.
The atom:uri element does not have a 'title' attribute or anything else
that makes it necessary to keep it as an element, the actual name of the
element is awkward in this context and it is not consistent with the rest
of the specification to have URI's as text nodes of elements but rather as
attribute values (of @src and @href attributes respectively).
Consistency makes the format easier to understand and learn. Isn't that
something worth stribing (and thus changing) for?
--
Asbj�rn Ulsberg -=|=- http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
�He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away�
