* James M Snell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-04-22 03:05]: > <grumble> ... I'm not really happy with it but this would work.
That’s roughly how I feel about it. :-) It has in fact been the theme all throughout the Thread extension development discussion… > To be absolutely honest, David's comments here [1] really got me > thinking. Yeah, same here. Credit for my proposition really goes to him, because his arguments about this matter (not just there, but taken in entirety) where what drove it. > I don't like it; the use of the supplemental element is ugly, Yeah; well sorta: it’s specifically goobering up the document with duplicate data in the necessary `ref` attributes that annoys me. But I can’t think of any prettier approach that satisfies all design goals as per David’s argument. > Where that gets nasty, of course, is when the href is relative > and xml:base is being used to set the Base URI. Augh. Nasty indeed. However, it doesn’t concern me much, because in Atom, `atom:link` has no children and only a single URI-carrying attribution. Extensions will probably avoid adding namespaced attributes or elements to it (cf. current discussion). This means there’s little reason to apply an `xml:base` to an individual `atom:link`. > The updated spec would have an appendix that would explain that > previous versions of the extension defined the attributes and > that some implementations have been deployed that use the > attributes. The spec will indicate that those attributes are > deprecated in favor of the thr:count element but that feed > consumers have the discretion of whether or not to support > them. I feel uncomfortable about it being codified for “eternity.” There are still Atom 0.2 feeds in the wild, even though they’re extremely rare. And we’re not seeing the end of Atom 0.3 anytime soon. With that experience in mind I’d really prefer that the previous approach not be legitimised even slightly, because that’s likely to lead consumer developers to feel that they need to support the old approach, and might lead publishers to probe that support. So I’d prefer that there be some pressure for the old approach to die quickly before it gets implemented in enough venues for the Atom 0.3 Effect to set in. I understand why you want it, though. -0.5, I suppose? I don’t know what to say about this. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
