James M Snell wrote:
My preference would be a link based alternative.
feed
...
entry
...
link rel=feed href=... /
/entry
/feed
I'm tired of arguing this one, so, I'm just going to say this one
more time and leave it at that.
Linking to the feed is not an
--On Tuesday, February 08, 2005 08:39:42 AM -0500 Bob Wyman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Linking to the feed is not an acceptable solution. It must be
possible to embed feed metadata in an entry in a feed and in an Entry
document.
+1
The feed document *must* be standalone. Everything required to
Well, I ain't gonna argue the point, but I'm going to stick by the
assertion that feeder/head is ugly. Any use of this stuff I plan to
make can live equally well with either approach.
- James M Snell
Walter Underwood wrote:
--On Tuesday, February 08, 2005 08:39:42 AM -0500 Bob Wyman
[EMAIL
PaceHeadless
-1
+1, there's no reason for atom:head.
Robert Sayre
-1 atom:feeder is ugly
Agree, feeder is ugly. but head should still go away. My preference
would be a link based alternative.
feed
...
entry
...
link rel=feed href=... /
/entry
/feed
- James M Snell
Eric Scheid wrote:
-1 atom:feeder is ugly
Graham wrote:
-1
Putting everything in one group and requiring it to be first is useful,
and also adds consistency to head-in-entry, as evidenced by the
introduction of the feeder element. Also feeder is a horrible word.
And head doesn't suck? I struggle to type a sentence on the subject
