I said: > I might have misinterpreted your comment, but I'm arguing with Tim for > saying that SEE's CAN contain relative refs and no clarifification is > needed, and with you for saying that SEE's CANNOT contain relative > refs and no clarification is needed. There's a word for that :)
I oversimplified that. What I really meant is not that rel refs are banned, but that publishers should not expect rel refs to be processed differently than strings. The value of a Simple Extension is a string. It is the job of an unextended Atom implementation to transfer those strings. Extensions can encode what they like in those strings, and if the extension is supported by the receiver, then it can be decoded. A publisher can put numbers, dates, URIs, or escaped XML in one of these string; they can even put relative refs in there, but they must only expect the string to be preserved, not the context of the surrounding XML. SEE's exist so that simple properties can be transfered without requiring that the CMS store an Infoset equivalent. -- Dave
