On 08/04/2009, at 12:57 PM, Brian Smith wrote:
Mark Nottingham wrote:
FYI; this would affect the interpretation of <link> in Atom as
well...
How would it affect Atom? Are you suggesting that some RFC update
RFC 4287
to change the syntax of links in Atom?
Probably not, unless people want to support the multiple-relation
style of links in Atom.
The alternative is to say that the 'stylesheet alternate'
combination isn't specific to how it's serialised, but is tied to
the occurrence of the links. I.e., when both relations are present
in links between the same resources, these special semantics take
affect. However, this does seem to directly conflict with the HTML4
language (see link above), so I don't think doing so is viable.
Atom cannot express "stylesheet alternate" without defining a new,
explicitly-named link relation, since atom:link/@rel cannot contain
any
spaces. I don't see how that limitation of Atom can removed without
breaking
many existing Atom processors.
This was one of the issues I brought up when arguing against one of
the
early Link header drafts. Although HTML, Atom, HTTP, and other
languages
have very similar linking syntax and semantics, there are many
important
differences that make it impractical to unify them.
Noted (again).
--
Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
