Re: Reviving the features draft?

[Eric Scheid <eric.scheid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 21/4/08 10:38 AM, "Brian Smith" <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If something can be done using existing standards, we should avoid
> creating new ways of doing things, unless the new ways are clearly
> superior to the existing mechanisms.

and unless the new uses of the existing standards don't neatly fit onto
those existing mechanisms. An example might be using atom:link to point to
an xslt resource for transforming the atom entry into something else - not a
fully expressed api callback, just the stylesheet. Or using atom:link to
point to the feed validator itself, and not the feed as validated by the
feed validator.

By example, this I would consider acceptable:

    <feed>
        <link rel="validator"
            href="http://feedvalidator.org/check?
                  url=http:%2F%2Fexample.com%2Ffeed.rss"
          />
        [...]
    </feed>


but this I would consider abuse of atom:link:

    <feed>
          <link rel="validator"
            href="http://feedvalidator.org/";
           />
         [...]
    </feed>


So then, is using atom:link to describe capabilities/features/etc rather
than describing links to related resources one more example of that?

e.