[6 rad] log-2018-04-13 @ [ log-2018-04-13.html ]
Conversation
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
This Tweet is from a suspended account. Learn more
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
hmm I'm pretty sure it's correct to put a link relative to xml:base in there, question is whether atom allows you to use the sibling <content> element's, at least until now I haven't encountered a client that choked on it
1
1
but then again xml:base scope seems to be specified differently so it'd have to be an atom house rule
ok I've changed it to something more obviously correct, whatever my reasoning was when I implemented it, I forgot it