>> I've mentioned this several times before and haven't had time to follow the
>> evolvement of the draft up until now, but as far as I can tell, atom:uri is
>> still in place in the specification... Do we really need a pace to have that
>> element renamed before the spec goes final?
>
> -1 to renaming the element.
> See http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13864.html
There are two arguments in parallel here:
(1) which is the proper term for a url/uri/iri ?
(2) is naming an element after the data type sensible ?
I say the first argument is a red herring, a bike shed, and entirely
redundant as we've already extensively used "IRI" in the spec.
Consider also:
http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13860.html
We have /author/name and not /author/string for a reason. Why then do we
have /author/uri?
Perhaps /author/about fits the intent?
> -1 to atom:link. No need for change for the sake of change.
plus I realised immediately after I posted that /author/link would get
confused with Link Constructs, which wasn't what I was suggesting.
That's not to say I'm averse to using Link Constructs in atom:author (or
atom:contributor) ...
e.
