[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Reviving the features draft?
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
By example, this I would consider acceptable:
but this I would consider abuse of atom:link:
So then, is using atom:link to describe capabilities/features/etc rather
than describing links to related resources one more example of that?