RE: Should <link /> be mandatory

["Bob Wyman" <bob@xxxxxxxx>]

Arve Bersvendsen wrote:
> The current draft says the presence of <link /> is 
> required, both at feed and entry-level:
> This actually implies that there actually is an
> alternate representation of the content. I can think 
> of several use-cases where this may not be the case...
	This raises another issue for synthetic feeds. If an entry is
relocated from a source feed to a synthetic feed or referenced from
another feed, how would one link to the original entry? i.e. what is
the syntax for a URI that identifies a single entry in a feed and
allows that entry to be located?

		bob wyman