On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Antone Roundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The reason I disagree with this is that the value of @type doesn't convey > the fact that the link points to a printer-friendly alternative. If you > could do something like 'type="text/html;media=print"', then sure, but > without information like that, there's no way to automatically select the > appropriate alterative representation for a particular use. >
My interpretation of the spec is that having two alternate tags with the types: text/html and text/html;media=print is completely legal. Is that correct? If so, is this a case where it might be helpful to establish best practices for content-type parameters? It seems like this would be immensely beneficial for application/xml (or any of the other catch-all mime-types for a vast variety of data types) to have a semi-standardized way to define or request the contents of an entry:content tag (or whatever). While I think it's somewhat out of scope for Atom to define that (since we're talking about link relationships, so that could be *anything*), if this was useful, it could be used to establish conventions within specific communities. -Ross.
