On 01/10/2005 01:05, James Holderness wrote:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
Thanks for the feedback. As I've explained before, I have a pretty
strong preference for the current design, to make it usable in other
formats; i.e., the scope of this is not just Atom (which is why I'm
probably going to do it as an Individual submission).
At first I thought this was a good idea, but I'm starting to have second
thoughts. The spec as it stands is fine for RSS 2, but I can see a lot
of Atom people thinking that you should be using atom:link (as Henry
suggested) and not wanting to "corrupt" their nice new format. No doubt
the RSS 1 folks have their own preference for where this should be going
and will probably be even more adamant that you do things the correct
way (not sure what that might be - something using dc:relation maybe?) I
would worry that if they don't like it, they won't use it.
I think the RSS 1.0 folks would be happiest with a self-contained
extension in its own namespace with each term having clear unambiguous
semantics. I think Mark's design achieves this.
Ian
--
http://internetalchemy.org | http://purl.org/NET/iand
Working on... Silkworm <http://silkworm.talis.com/>
