On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:36:43 -0800, Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 7, 2005, at 12:32 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: > > > Ok, now what if the Atom spec said that all child elements of <entry> > > are to be considered to be characteristics of that entry, with the > > value of those characteristics being given by the content of the > > child. > > Would you be satisfied with a paragraph that says that those who extend > Atom may do so by putting in namespaced elements, and that such > elements, when the information they contain is relevant to an entry, > SHOULD appear as a child of atom:entry? > > And I suppose a similar paragraphs concerning atom:feed?
I think having something along those general lines would be significantly better than the current situation. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but if most people were happy with it, I would be too. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
