* Tim Bray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-05 01:50]: > This assertion that atom:link is not extensible is simply, > flatly, completely, wrong. I just went and reviewed 4287 and I > think it is perfectly clear on this. I suggest that interested > parties review sections 4.2.7, 6.3, and 6.4 and, if they still > think there is any problem with child elements of <atom:link>, > find language in the RFC which says something other than what > those sections say.
The assertion is not that atom:link may not have child elements or namespaced attributes. The assertion is that the list of locations for Metadata elements in Section 6.4 should have included atom:link. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
