> James M Snell wrote: >> Maybe, but given that WG messed up in not making the link element >> formally extensible, it's not likely to be pretty.
Nice one. > > a. Status quo. Leave things the way they are in the current draft. -1. James M Snell wrote: > None of the implementors I'm aware of are currently making use of > multiple replies link relations It doesn't work in the Windows Feed API, client implementors haven't been too excited about it, and it's not based on existing practice. I don't really have a problem parsing it, I just don't know what I would do with a group of those figures, or why it's even needed. > > > b. Drop thr:count and thr:when from the spec. + 0.5. thr:when seems pretty useless. > > > d. Create a supplemental extension element +1. Robert Sayre
