* Eric Scheid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-09-18 16:00]: > On 18/9/08 10:56 PM, "'Aristotle Pagaltzis'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I do have to wonder in retrospect why we thought a resource > > could not have several different equally valid > > representations with the same content type, but that ship has > > long sailed. > > think of it as subtle incentive to mint more specific and > appropriate @rel values =)
That is a good point. If it were allowed, the fact that aggregators privilege `alternate` links might have led people to declare resources as alternates that aren’t. (Linkblogs do just that, but that’s another windmill…) Ugh. (Note that speaking both in a pure semantic sense and in a pragmatic sense, for this particular use case I really do consider `alternate` to be the appriopriate relation.) Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>
