atom:icon is defined as:
atomIcon = element atom:icon {
atomCommonAttributes,
(atomUri)
}
atomCommonAttributes is defined as:
atomCommonAttributes =
attribute xml:base { atomUri }?,
attribute xml:lang { atomLanguageTag }?,
undefinedAttribute*
The Validator should be ignoring any extensions (including attributes)
it is not familiar with so yes, I would say that it's wrong if its
returning an error. A warning would be appropriate tho given that not
all implementations will be capable of making use of extension attributes.
One additional point, be sure to clearly define whether or not your
title attribute value should be interpreted as plain text or escaped
markup (preferably the former).
- James
James Aylett wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:27:27AM -0700, James M Snell wrote:
>
>> Using extension attributes is a perfectly legitimate solution. The one
>> drawback is that not all implementations will support 'em.
>
> That's not a problem, to be honest - we have (amongst other things) a
> Flash 'player' for the atom feeds involved, and some clients want a
> title alongside the feed icon and/or logo.
>
> Feed Validator gets upset with extension attributes - is it wrong?
>
> James
>
