* David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-31 02:20]:
> Saturday, July 30, 2005, 9:55:33 PM, Antone Roundy wrote:
> 
> > <link rel="in-reply-to" ...>
> >         <link rel="in-reply-to-feed" ... />
> > </link>
> 
> I'm not at all keen on extending the link element in this way.
> Atom Publishing Servers that don't know about this extension
> that receive an entry containing nested links from a publishing
> client will most likely drop the content of the link and
> publish it to clients without the inner link.

Strictly speaking, per Extensions To the Atom Vocabulary (sec.
6.2), an Atom processor must treat the nested link as it would
treat any other Structured Extension Element (sec. 6.4.2).

However, sec. 6.2 implies that such elements which have the
characteristics of an Extension Element but come from the Atom
namespace can only be introduced by future versions of Atom and
both sec. 6.4.1 and sec. 6.4.2 seem to explicitly forbid elements
from the Atom namespace (although that might only be what my RNC
analphabeticism suggests).

So Atom processors would have to treat this markup “correctly.”
The spec does not allow us to extend Atom in this way, however,
and that makes sense, too: what if a future version of Atom were
to allow nested links, but with semantics that differ from those
in this threading extension? This is exactly the situation that
the definitions in Extending Atom (sec. 6) seek to prevent.

Regards,
-- 
Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>

Reply via email to