Re: atom:category excludes atom:* children? Nikunj Mehta Tue May 26 15:00:53 2009
I want to revive this thread as a recent IETF submission to support hierarchy in Atom feeds and entries  defines the meaning of atom:entry and atom:feed nested directly under atom:link elements.
Nikunj Text: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy-00.txt HTML: http://www.oracle.com/technology/tech/feeds/spec/draft-divilly-atom-hierarchy.html
Sam Ruby wrote:
Bill de hOra wrote:No, because I see the spirit of the RFC as allowing what it does not explicitly disallow. Hence the RNC is non-normative.[snip]I would say "huge gaping hole in the spec" were it not for my opinion that the WG worked on a default allow basis and the intent was never to restrict this kind of usage.Drats. This thread has seemed to died down. I had hopes...As you say, the RNC is non-normative. And consumers of Atom need to be aware that it is quite possible for subsequent RFCs to define new Atom vocabulary that is to be used as immediate children of atom:feed or atom:entry, let alone places which are intentional extension points.Now, as to the feed validator, this is one of those rare times that it is at cross-purposes with the spec. For the feed validator to be useful, it needs to be implemented with a "default disallow" policy lest it accept both atom:category and atom:catagory.If there is any actual use of atom:link inside of atom:category, I'll downgrade this to a warning ("might be rejected by code that overzealously uses the provided RNC as a filter"). If there is any actual spec for how it is to be used, I'll eliminate the message completely for the use cases provided by the spec.- Sam Ruby