Subject: Re: The atom:uri element

From: Eric Scheid <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 01:13:22 +1000

>> I've mentioned this several times before and haven't had time to follow  the
>> evolvement of the draft up until now, but as far as I can tell,  atom:uri is
>> still in place in the specification... Do we really need a  pace to have that
>> element renamed before the spec goes final?
> 
> -1 to renaming the element.
> See http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13864.html

There are two arguments in parallel here:
    (1) which is the proper term for a url/uri/iri ?
    (2) is naming an element after the data type sensible ?

I say the first argument is a red herring, a bike shed, and entirely
redundant as we've already extensively used "IRI" in the spec.

Consider also:
    http://www.imc.org/atom-syntax/mail-archive/msg13860.html

We have /author/name and not /author/string for a reason. Why then do we
have /author/uri?

Perhaps /author/about fits the intent?

> -1 to atom:link. No need for change for the sake of change.

plus I realised immediately after I posted that /author/link would get
confused with Link Constructs, which wasn't what I was suggesting.

That's not to say I'm averse to using Link Constructs in atom:author (or
atom:contributor) ...

e.