  Re: New Version Notification for draft-mehta-atom-inline-01
Nikunj R. Mehta Mon Jul 13 16:30:27 2009  Hi Mark,  Thanks for
the close look at the in-line I-D. I am tracking three issues
from your feedback:  Implications of in-lining inside Atom
documents [1] Syntax too verbose [2] Support in-lining of non-
Atom content [3]  The verbosity question has alternately been
asked as:  1. Why invent a new container when atom:feed and
atom:entry could be potentially in-lined without violating Atom
2. Why make the design as complicated as that of atom:content?
The approach in inline-01 is a compromise between all three
concerns. The two approaches, (a) and (b), you suggest below:
1. end up forking the meaning of "feed" and "entry" and future
specs would have to specify applicability of their mechanisms in
the context of the new mechanism in addition to their use in
RFC4287. A lot of the meta data specialized for feeds such as
link relations (paging), identity, and others would have to be
repeated in the new element.