hello martin and peter.
Martin Atkins wrote:
Peter Krantz wrote:
<entry>
<content src="/docs/example.pdf" type="application/pdf" />
</entry>
Is this a misunderstanding on my part or is it just a rare enough
example that hasn't been implemented in client software?
<entry>
<link rel="enclosure"
href="/docs/example.pdf"
type="application/pdf" />
</entry>
The link in the content will provide an access method for the most basic
clients and the enclosure may provide additional functionality such as
automatic download for clients with support for enclosures.
now that you say it, it may be the case than "enclosure" is the better
way to go in this case. however, "enclosure" (i think) implies that the
enclosure *is* the actual content. "alternate" says (i think) that the
linked resource is an alternate version. and since you're publishing
PDF, which is not the pinnacle of accessibility anyway, you might
consider publishing all or some of the contents in HTML, in which case
"alternate" might become more appropriate. this is what we did in our
example for the stimulus feeds (which are currently distributed as excel
files): we suggested to publish them as XML; and to make it even easier
for humans to understand what's going on, we also publish them as HTML
in the feed, and link to the XML from the feed via entry/link *and* from
the embedded HTML. here is an example:
http://isd.ischool.berkeley.edu/stimulus/feeds/weekly-site.atom
it was my understanding that "alternate" would be the more appropriate
relationship in this case, because the HTML and the XML are essentially
the same, but the definitions of the relationships in atom leave some
room for interpretation, i suppose.
cheers,
dret.
