The spec can be changed, it's just not a great idea to do so until we get a critical mass of issues that can't seem to be adequately worked around.
You can accomplish what you're trying to do by throwing in an alternate link, using the summary element and dropping the content. <entry> <title>Example Title</title> <id>http://www.example.org/</id> <summary>A simple explanation of quantum entaglement</summary> <link type="text/html" src="http://www.example.org/"; /> <published>2006-11-19T13:05:00Z</published> <updated>2006-11-19T13:05:00Z</updated> </entry> However, you should do as Aristotle suggests and file a bug report with any aggregator that does not support the content/@src attribute. - James Tse Shing Chi (Franklin/Whale) wrote: > Why can't change the specification? It is currently a proposed standard only. > > I still think that providing alternate content is very important... at > least... add an "alt" attribute to atom:content as if xhtml:img... > > Franklin > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of A. Pagaltzis > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 00:15 > To: atom-syntax@imc.org > Subject: Re: The "src" attribute of atom:content > > > * Tse Shing Chi (Franklin/Whale) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-11-19 16:05]: >> Unfortunately, numbers of feed aggregators will not follow the >> src attribute probably due to security reasons. > > atom:content/@src is indeed not well supported. Many aggregators > aren’t even aware of the attribute and don’t do even as much as > showing a link to the external content. This is broken; please > file a bug against the aggregator in question. > >> However, it is actually an abuse of atom:summary because the >> "atom:summary" element is a Text construct that conveys a short >> summary, abstract, or excerpt of an entry. > > Agreed. > >> More unfortunately, feed aggregators will not consider this >> entry is linking to http://www.example.org/ even though the >> content is external. > > This is correct and by design (though implementation correctness > here is probably often by accident; see above). > >> The followings are my thoughts. >> >> 1. When the "src" attribute of atom:content is present, it >> includes the meaning of having an alternate link to the same >> URI inside "src". >> >> 2. atom:content SHOULD NOT be empty. I think that atom:content >> is something like xhtml:object. Alternate contents should be >> put inside the element. > > We could discuss whether these ideas would have been worthwhile. > However, this is moot, as the spec is done and cannot be changed. > Since these suggestions are incompatible with RFC 4287, they > cannot be recommended as best practices either. Sorry. :-( > > Regards,
