* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-31 00:30]: > I agree. I'd much rather avoid introducing a new namespace for > this tho. Nested link elements if just fine I think > > <link rel="in-reply-to" href="..."> > <link rel="source" href="..." /> > </link>
Nope. As I just wrote in reply to David Powell, sec. 6 of the spec forbids this, and rightly so. It reserves use of elements from the Atom namespace in places other than those specified for use by future versions of the Atom spec *only* for good reason. What if a future version of Atom were to specify nested links, but with semantics that differ from the threading extension? Suddenly, all existing Atom documents with threading clash with the spec. It’s either a regular non-nested link element with a new @rel value or an extension element with a new namespace. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
