On Wed, 25 May 2005 14:53:05 +0200, Graham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

-1 to "atom:link" unless they are proper link elements.

What about atom:[EMAIL PROTECTED], then?

I'm fairly happy with the current situation.

Okay, but do you agree that the atom:uri element is a bit inconsistent with the rest of the format specification?

--
Asbj�rn Ulsberg     -=|=-    http://virtuelvis.com/quark/
�He's a loathsome offensive brute, yet I can't look away�

Reply via email to