Hi Erik,
On 02/03/2009, at 7:22 AM, Erik Wilde wrote:
Peter Keane wrote:
Here's the link:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-03.txt
thanks a lot for the link! http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-nottingham-http-link-header-04.txt
is the latest version, btw, and i have updated my atom landscape
overview to also include a link to that draft, which i hope will
become an RFC.
http://dret.typepad.com/dretblog/atom-landscape.html
it seems to me that this draft and HTML5 are currently out of sync
when it comes to linking to feeds. HTML5 explicitly defines a "feed"
relation (http://dev.w3.org/html5/spec/Overview.html#link-type-
feed), whereas the draft only has "alternate" and thus probably is
based on current practice. is HTML5 expected to maybe add
"feed" (and whatever else new link relations it may introduce) to
the registry, or wouldn't it be easier to include this in the
registry from the very beginning, so that HTML5 can count on it?
Like any application of the framework described in that draft, HTML5
has to opt into it; the only exceptions to that are HTTP headers
(which the draft itself defines) HTML4 (being grandfathered in with
significant pain, see the TAG thread), and Atom (being changed
explicitly, and only slightly, by the draft).
Since HTML5 is a work-in-progress, it's not really appropriate to talk
about it in the draft; if they want to define how to hook in, they're
more than welcome to do so (and we've worked to address as many of
their concerns as possible, but only time will tell...).
Likewise, I've tried to avoid defining new relations in the draft
itself; that's not what it's trying to do.
Cheers,
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
