On 25/5/05 2:45 PM, "Eric Scheid" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I agree with this. I thought it was unusual to name a tag after a specific >> technology rather than its intent (atom:email is an exception). In this >> instance, I think atom:name, atom:resource, or atom:link works better. > > +1 atom:link doh! I was thinking "link" vs "web" vs "any-damn-name" ... totally forgot we already have an element named "link". so ... -1 atom:link which is not a Link Construct +1 atom:link which is a Link Construct +1 renaming atom:uri to something semantic instead of some data type +0.5 to making it an attribute, just as we have with atom:generator -1 to leaving it as it is (yes, yes, I know we don't have Link Construct in the spec any more) e.
