[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Private extensions and relation to atom elements

To: atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Private extensions and relation to atom elements
From: James Aylett <james@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2006 15:45:53 +0100
In-reply-to: <4505724F.4000606@xxxxxxxxx>
List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/>
List-id: <atom-syntax.imc.org>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atom-syntax-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Mail-followup-to: James Aylett <james@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, atom-syntax@xxxxxxx
References: <20060911112712.GF17947@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <4505724F.4000606@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-atom-syntax@xxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 07:27:27AM -0700, James M Snell wrote:

> Using extension attributes is a perfectly legitimate solution.  The one
> drawback is that not all implementations will support 'em.

That's not a problem, to be honest - we have (amongst other things) a
Flash 'player' for the atom feeds involved, and some clients want a
title alongside the feed icon and/or logo.

Feed Validator gets upset with extension attributes - is it wrong?

James

-- 
/--------------------------------------------------------------------------\
  James Aylett                                                  xapian.org
  james@xxxxxxxxxxxx                               uncertaintydivision.org

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Private extensions and relation to atom elements
  - From: Tim Bray
- Re: Private extensions and relation to atom elements
  - From: James M Snell

References:
- Private extensions and relation to atom elements
  - From: James Aylett
- Re: Private extensions and relation to atom elements
  - From: James M Snell

Prev by Date: Re: Private extensions and relation to atom elements
Next by Date: Re: Private extensions and relation to atom elements
Previous by thread: Re: Private extensions and relation to atom elements
Next by thread: Re: Private extensions and relation to atom elements
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread