* Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-18 21:40]: > The point of the whole exercise is to create a lightweight > document for volatile metadata. If it's an atom:feed, you have > to include a lot of stuff that's not needed here--atom:title, > atom:updated, atom:author, and atom:summary or atom:content. > Also, you'd need to have an atom:id for each entry in addition > to the @ref pointing to the entry that it talks about.
I did say that atom:entry is overkill. You could still use a feed document, though. If you have no atom:entry in it you can elide the feed-level atom:author, and the other required elements for a feed (atom:id and atom:updated) seem like a good idea to have in this sort of document. Only atom:title is unnecessary, but that does not feel like a big burden. > Sure, but if they don't understand FTE, they wouldn't know what > to do with the extra metadata anyway even if it were in the > main feed. That is only half correct. The point of Sec 6.4 is to allow intermediaries at the infrastructure level (which includes things like the RSS Platform) to store and pass on extension metadata generically, without having to understand what a particular extension means. If you put this metadata out of band, then the application layer has to take on infrastructure layer responsibilities. Note that I’m not arguing against the approach. It seems like an interesting idea. I’m just pointing out that it does have costs. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
