I believe the concern is over the thr:count and thr:when attributes for the replies link relation, both of which are optional, and both of which provide what I consider to be extra information. In other words, it's ok if an implementation drops them. The important bit is the in-reply-to element and the replies link rel, both of which fall within the bounds of the Atom extension model.
- James A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * David Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-24 02:20]: >> 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. > > I don’t follow. Please explain how these drafts fail to satisfy > the criteria in Section 6.4.2, Structured Extension Elements. > > Regards,
