On Saturday, July 30, 2005, at 03:59 PM, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
I’d prefer to eliminate the one contra you listed by using an
extension element for this purpose (as always, nested into the
link.) Of course, that means need a namespace…
Given that the link to the feed is traversable, and the "link" to the
ID of the entry may not be, I'd suggest using an extension element for
the possibly-non-traversable link, if for either....which would leave
us needing to pick a good @rel value for the traversable one. That
would also keep my con point around:
<foo:non-traversable-reference id-of-other-entry="...">
<link ... />
</foo:non-traversable-reference>
...unless it were done this way:
<link ...>
<foo:non-traversable-reference id-of-other-entry="..." />
</link>
...but doesn't quite work, because the logical relationships between
the elements are entry to foo:non-traversable and foo:non-traversable
to link, not entry to link and link to foo:non-traversable.
I'm satisfied to live with the negative point of having a link in an
unexpected place. And since I don't like non-traversable atom:links, I
myself prefer <foo:non-traversable><link/></foo:non-traversable>,
though I don't expect it to be adopted.
