Thursday, March 23, 2006, 9:39:09 PM, James M Snell wrote:
> Just wanted to follow through on this for everyone. Given that there > are vendors getting ready to ship code based on the current rev of the > spec, I'm *not* going to rename the "id" attribute to "ref". Yes, I > know that "id" is confusing to some folks, but we're just talking the > name of a single attribute and not a critical functional bug. From this > point forward, only critical spec bugs will be fixed and I will be > submitting the spec for consideration as a standards track RFC in the > not too distant future. I'm more bothered about the use of undefined markup on the link element. I know, I know, I keep going on and on about this, but I keep seeing more drafts that do the same thing and it isn't just a theoretical problem: Windows Feed Platform does not preserve arbitrary markup other than proper extension elements. Other feed stores and servers are likely to do the same (justifiably IMO). The abandonment of extension constructs in favour of undefined markup by this draft, and other draft-*-atompub-* drafts would be an interoperability concern if these drafts were deployed. If you want to extend Atom, use Extension Elements. -- Dave
