Graham, > > I feel that HTML entities other than numeric references, >, > > <, > > &, ', and &quote; should be depreciated in HTML > > content. > > Disagree. All it needs is a simple look-up table in the HTML parser.
In an XSLT-based Atom-to-XHTML processor, that is a large cost when HTML includes many many many entities. At least, I think so and have ignored the problem because I can't think of a good way to solve it. > > There is no reason *not* to change this to "atom:id". It is lazy and > > dangerous to have an element lie about the type of its content. > > Furthermore, > > the whole point of atom:uri is the same as atom:id - to identify > > the thing > > they refer to (author or entry) - and their content is likewise > > identical. > > There is no reason to think that it is either unique to an author or > will be the same for every reference to a particular author. It's a > useless identifier. I agree, but for other reasons (see my reply to Aristotle Pagaltzis). Still, calling it atom:uri is a lie by the spec. Specs should NEVER NEVER lie! > > OTOH, is there a reason that atom:uri (which should be > > atom:indentifier) and > > atom:email are not attributes of a person construct? > > To allow easier, consistent extension. OK. -- Jimmy Cerra https://nemo.dev.java.net ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
