* Robert Sayre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-05-17 01:50]: > You have no technical reason that makes that location > compelling, and several WG members have questioned whether this > document adequately covers the area in question.
I have to disagree that there is no technical reason. There is no way to sanely associate additional information with a link element. I suggested an approach based on cross-referencing with the `href` value, but interactions with xml:base invalidate that approach. Other than `href`, there is no other hook on `atom:link` which could be used for cross-referencing without resorting to microparsing hacks. The root of the problem is a miniscule omission in RFC 4287: Sec 6.4. does not list `atom:link` as a location for Metadata elements. It should have. The effect is that links in Atom can only be extended at the XML level, not at the model level. There is no other reasonable choice for the FTE than to supply this information as namespaced attributes on the link element. This is now clear. I hate the idea as much as you do, but RFC 4287 is what it is. > In fact, you appear unable to explain the rationale behind any > technical decision without resorting to circular reasoning, > logical fallacies, and claims that are outright false. That doesn’t mean there is *no* reason for any of these technical decisions. But I agree that James has advocated the position he chose on this particular issue extremely poorly, just as you’d have done your own argument a favour by omitting your interpretation of the matter as vendor politics. Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
