On 25/10/05 5:17 PM, "Henry Story" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> <link rel="enclosure" type="audio/mpeg" href="http://example.com/ >>> file.mp3" xml:id="x-file"> >>> <altlink:mirror href="http://www2.example.com/file.mp3"; /> >>> <altlink:mirror href="http://www3.example.com/file.mp3"; /> >>> </link> >>> >> >> It¹s a lot more verbose and you have to fiddle with nesting. >> >> What do you get in return? ³It looks more XMLish²? >> > > yes!? We are using xml! not only that, but if someone wants to write another extension (gasp!), it would be very easy to fold it in, using native XML methods... <link ..> <x:alternate y:attribute=".." ...> <z:extension .../> </s:alternate> </link> (not that I can think of any such extensions, but why be a bastard to future inventors and innovators?) e.
